America’s Takeover of the United Nations

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Jeffrey Feltman and Ban Ki-Moon

The calls at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran for reforming the United Nations and democratizing the Security Council were not exactly new. These calls for UN reform were embodied by the conference’s dictum of “lasting peace through joint global governance.” These demands have been made over and over again by various countries and groups throughout the years.

Nor was everyone present at the NAM gala in Tehran a friend of Iran or open to the Iranian proposals for reforming the United Nations. The visibly shaken Jeffrey Feltman, who was uncomfortably sitting with Iranian officials in Tehran alongside his new boss Ban Ki-moon, can testify to all this. Feltman is a clear symbol of how contaminated the United Nations has become by the imperialist interests of Washington.

The manipulation of the United Nations for imperialist interests, however, goes back a long way. From its inception, the United Nations was meant to facilitate the global influence of the US after the Second World War. The idea of the United Nations, which gets its name from the military coalition (called the United Nations) of the Allied countries that was formed against Germany and the Axis countries, was based on an agreement drafted by the US and the UK during the Second World War. This agreement, the Atlantic Charter, was written out while the US was officially neutral, but secretly supported the British war effort against Germany and its Axis allies by sending supplies to Britain through Canada. The US would later use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii as a justification for entering the war and getting the other Allies to accept the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter during the war and then at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.

The United Nations Security Council

The membership of the UN grew from fifty-one to a hundred and fifty-nine members between 1945 and 1985, with most of the new member countries being former colonies. The UN was used as a tool to control most these former Western European and American colonies of the Third World. At first the US and its post-war allies maintained their domination over the newly formed UN and the former colonies through their numbers and then through a Western Bloc monopoly over the structures of the United Nations. Hereto this monopoly includes control over the agencies and permanent veto-wielding chairs of the fifteen-member Security Council of the United Nations.

The Security Council above all has been used by the US as a means of protecting its interests. The purpose of the Security Council veto is to reject any international resolutions and consensuses against the national interests (or more precisely the interests of the ruling elites) of the US and the other major post-World War II powers. Except for the rival Soviet Union, the US originally controlled or heavily influenced the other three permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. Britain and the US were essentially confederated and had integrated in 1941 with one another through the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter. France, as a declining power like the UK, was heavily dependent on the United States. The Chinese seat was also originally held by the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) which was a US client.

US General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the chief of staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Kuomintang-ruled China before Kai-shek fled to Taiwan after the Communist Party of China took over the mainland. The US even envisioned a role for the Kuomintang in governing the former French colonies of Indo-China. Only in 1971 would Washington lose control over the Chinese seat at the UN Security Council when the People’s Republic of China was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people by the majority of the UN General Assembly and therefore handed over Taiwan’s permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

While the Soviet Union originally made the most vetoes at the UN Security Council, the situation began to change towards the second half of the Cold War and in the post-Cold War era when the US began to take the lead in making vetoes. Ironically, the US and its allies are saying that the international system is failing now due to the double vetoes of China and Russia preventing foreign intervention in Syria. No similar complaints have been made about the numerous vetoes cast by Washington in support of Israel.

Eventually the UN Security Council went beyond the function of protecting US interests after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It became a tool for projecting US interests globally as Washington began to push for unipolar post-Cold War hegemony. The Chinese and Russian double vetoes signal an end to both Pax Americana and the use of the UN Security Council to project US power.

The Secretariat of the United Nations

Besides the United Nations Security Council, the Secretariat of the United Nations has been predominately under the control of the US and its allies. At first this took place because the US and the Western Bloc had numerical superiority at the United Nations. Thus, the first two secretaries-general of the UN were from the Western European kingdoms of Norway, and Sweden. Prior to this Baron Hubert Gladwyn from the United Kingdom was the acting secretary-general of the UN. Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold would visibly serve US and Western Bloc interests to the point that the Soviets and others would demand he be removed from the UN Secretariat.

As the Western Bloc began to lose its numerical advantage, control over the Secretariat would be maintained through the Security Council. The UN Security Council does this by filtering all the candidates for the top UN post in the Secretariat. Secretaries-general of the UN are appointed by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Thus, the US and other permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes that can eliminate any candidates that would be hostile to their interests.

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s condemnations about the Secretariat of the United Nations, which helped remove nationalist leaders from power across Africa and the Third World, have a resonating truth to them. After a long streak of secretaries-general that were predominately favorable to the Western Bloc, the Non-Aligned Movement would push a NAM candidate into the UN Secretariat. The NAM’s position is the basis for the elevation of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s to the post of UN secretary-general in 1992.

Bourtos-Ghali was the closest thing to the last independent secretary-general of the United Nations. The world, however, rapidly changed since the end of the Cold War and Washington expected a far greater degree of subservience from the Secretariat of the UN. After the Cold War UN secretaries-general were expected to act as loyal US stewards. This would start with the Ghanaian UN career bureaucrat Kofi Annan.

Kofi Annan: An Enabler of “Responsibility to Protect”

To his credit Annan is a shrewd diplomatic figure that knows how to sit on the fence, but he has cunningly served the US while appearing circumvent. Aside from the public reports about the involvement of Annan and his son Kojo in the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food scandal, the former secretary-general has a history of legitimizing US interventionism and the occupation of other UN members. Career US diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was one of the central figures involved in the balkanization of Yugoslavia, praised Annan as one of the most supportive figures for Washington’s foreign policy in the Balkans. This is why Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside from the secretary-generalship of the UN by Washington’s veto to make way for Annan.

Israel Cannot Wage a War against Iran without a "Green Light" from the US

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky

Preparing for a Confrontation with Iran: Beefing Up Israel's Missile Defense

Turning point in the Structure of Israel's Air Defense System
In late December 2008, coinciding with the onslaught of Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" directed against Gaza, the Pentagon dispatched some 100 military personnel to Israel from US European Command (EUCOM) to assist Israel in setting up a new sophisticated X-band early warning radar system as part of a  new and integrated air defense system. (See defense.gov/news/, December 30, 2011). The project had been approved by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in September 2008.

With media attention focussing on Gaza, this crucial military initiative in the area of US-Israel Air Defense passed virtually unnoticed. The official story was that Tel Aviv had requested this aid "to help defend against a potential missile attack from Iran". 

What was at stake, however, was a new threshold, a fundamental turning point in the structure of Israel's Air Defense system and its relationship to the US global missile detection system.
Casually heralded as "military aid", the project consisted in strengthening the integration of Israel's air defense system into that of the US, with the Pentagon rather than Israel calling the shots:   

"Once fully operational, the system will be capable of tracking and identifying small objects at long distance and at very high altitude, including space, according to U.S. Missile Defense Agency officials. It also will integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network.

This, he said, will greatly enhance Israel’s defensive capabilities. “There is a growing ballistic missile threat in the region, particularly from Iran,” Morrell said. “And no one in the region should feel more nervous about that threat than the Israelis. And they clearly do, and they have asked for our assistance.” (Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009, emphasis added.)

The new X-band radar system 'permits an intercept soon after launch over enemy instead of friendly territory" (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran's missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). 

The X-band radar would "integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors." (Ibid) .

According to a July 2008 report by Stratfor, the use of the more advanced X-band radar system would enable Israel to be more effective in the use of its Arrow and Patriot missiles (in comparison to its Super Green Pine radar system).

"Meanwhile, integration with the U.S. early warning system would further give the Israelis access to the Defense Support Program’s space-based infrared launch detection satellites, and perhaps even to feeds from U.S. BMD-capable Aegis-equipped warships operating in the Persian Gulf. ... As a whole, these two developments would ultimately further harden Israeli airspace from ballistic missile attack, thus further undermining the threat of Iranian Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles." (Stratfor, July 30, 2008) 

"This is our system and not that of Israel"

Defense Lobby in Full Tilt as Corporate Welfare Receives Public Scrutiny

Wired

Defense giant Lockheed Martin had a totally sweet quarter, raking in $700 million and looking forward to the same this time next year. So it raises eyebrows when Lockheed’s anointed mouthpieces predict mass economic disaster if Congress touches the defense budget.

On Tuesday, the aerospace industry put out a report saying that chopping the defense budget would put over a million Americans out of work. Cuts that could total up to a trillion dollars over 10 years would “devastate the economy and the defense industrial base and undermine the national security of our country,” said Marion Blakeley, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, which sponsored the report.

But while Blakeley’s group paid for research to draw that dire conclusion, some of her members reported a sunnier economic outlook to their shareholders. In its third-quarter earnings report, also released Tuesday, Lockheed – manufacturers of the F-22 and F-35 jets — told investors to expect that as long as Congress passes President Obama’s next defense budget, ”the Corporation expects 2012 net sales to be flattish as compared to 2011 levels, and that consolidated 2012 segment operating profit margin will remain at approximately 11 percent.” Boom: another $700 million in earnings, on its way.

While there’s no doubt that defense cuts will mean job losses, there’s also no doubt that a report prepared for an industry so reliant on defense cash will paint a stark picture of what happens if that cash is threatened. Congressmembers looking to get reelected pay attention, since fighting for defense money as a jobs program is easier than making a case for what a sensible, appropriately funded defense strategy ought to be. That’s the problem with reports like these: They make it easy to ignore structural economic and defense problems and imply that all will be well if the cash keeps flowing.

One-Eyed Men In The World Of The Blind – An Analysis by Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Intifada Palestine
Dr. Lawrence Davidson

There is an interesting phenomenon which we can call “the political retiree’s confession.” I don’t mean all those hyped memoirs, ghost written for all manner of high ranking ex-officials. Here I refer to statements by important political leaders and bureaucrats, either out of office or about to vacate their positions, publically describing what really needs to be done. For instance, what really needs to be done to obtain peace, or accurately pointing fingers at those obstructing peace. These statements can be shocking in their honesty, but curiously enough, are never made, much less acted upon, while the truth sayer is in a position of power. They come to us only with retirement or pending retirement.

For example, take former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert was Prime Minister from 2006 (replacing Ariel Sharon who had suffered a debilitating stroke) till early 2009. A few months before leaving office Olmert told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that, in the end, Israel would have to return “almost all” of the West Bank to the Palestinians, including East Jerusalem. There was no other way to achieve peace with the Arab world. Olmert went on, “the decision we are going to have to make is the decision we have been refusing for 40 years to look at open-eyed….The time has come to say these things. The time has come to put them on the table.” Of course “the time” oddly coincided with a period when the Prime Minister could not move this insight from theory into practice.

Now we have another example of this strange phenomenon. This time from the United States. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, the national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “in a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee held shortly before his retirement this summer [2011]” gave his expert opinion that the Israeli government was ungrateful for United States assistance. That despite all the Obama administration had done for Jerusalem, “access to top-quality weapons, assistance developing missile defense systems, high-level intelligence sharing….the U.S. has received nothing in return.” On top of that, in Gates’s estimation Prime Minister Netanyahu is “endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation…” No one at the high level meeting disagreed with this analysis.

Gates’s publically revealed anger is nice to hear about but, like Olmert’s epiphany, it means little in practice. Netanyahu has been rude, duplicitous and downright nasty to President Obama in what was actually a replay of the behavior of Menachem Begin toward Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. Carter’s National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski learned to distrust the Israeli leadership and would later, after he was no longer in office, advocate an increasing hard line toward Jerusalem. Indeed, he once suggested military confrontation with Israel if that country’s leaders risked a regional war by attacking Iranian nuclear development sites (he suggested the U.S. Air Force shoot down the Israeli planes). This was a reasonable suggestion given the stakes but, of course, it was made when Brzezinski had no position of influence.

Canadian Citizen Tortured in Bahrain... But Harper Government Keeps Silent

Global Research
Finian Cunningham

Stephen Harper

A young Canadian man suffering from a serious heart condition has been abducted and tortured by the Bahraini regime ¬– yet the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has maintained a steadfast silence over his plight.

This lack of action by the Harper government is in spite of the fact that the Canadian Consuls in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are fully aware of the case. The official silence may be due to a bilateral trade deal Canada is in the process of completing with the Bahraini regime, and also Ottawa’s increasing subordinance to Washington’s foreign policy and therefore unwillingness to upset an important US ally in the Persian Gulf.

Naser Al Raas (28), who resides in Ottawa, was caught up in the popular uprising in the oil-rich Gulf kingdom that erupted in mid-February while on a family holiday. He arrived in Bahrain on 6 March to visit his five sisters who live there.

But when the former Microsoft IT specialist went to exit the country on 20 March, he was stopped while boarding his flight by ministry of interior officers. Although Al Raas was travelling on a Canadian passport, he was hauled into a room at Bahrain’s international airport and detained for several hours during which time he was hooded, interrogated and physically assaulted. That was just the beginning of his nightmare.

He was then taken by his captors to the infamous Al Qala – the ministry of interior headquarters in the capital, Manama, and incarcerated for four weeks without any criminal charges being made. During his illegal detention, Al Raas was severely tortured.

The Canadian suffers from a rare lung and heart condition – pulmonary embolism. He has previously undergone two open-heart operations at the Ottawa Heart Institute and he requires constant medication. Around the time of arrest, his supply of medication, which he had brought from Canada, ran out. He has been without treatment for nearly four months now.

The sprawling grey Al Qala fortress in Manama is surrounded by an imposing 20-metre-high wall and is equipped with underground holding cells. It is notorious among Bahrainis as the regime’s “torture chamber”. This is where up to 1,000 civilians have been detained following the US-backed crackdown against the pro-democracy uprising that is challenging the unelected Al Khalifa monarchy, headed by King Hamad. Four people have been tortured to death while in custody in recent months, according to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights [1].

The fierce repression against peaceful demonstrators escalated on 14 March when troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates invaded Bahrain to shore up the Al Khalifa regime. Two days before the Saudi-led military intervention, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates held a private meeting with King Hamad in Manama.

Despite condemnations by numerous human rights groups of the Saudi-led invasion and subsequent violations, Washington has remained a staunch supporter of the Al Khalifa regime, with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describing it as a “key ally”. The US Navy Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain.

For one month, the family of Naser Al Raas did not know of his whereabouts or even if he was alive. They knew that his last movements were in the airport because he talked to a friend by phone just before his scheduled departure. However, for the next four weeks, the Bahraini government denied all knowledge of the Canadian man.

After one month of being held incommunicado, the Bahraini regime released Al Raas but with-held his passport. He is now stranded in Bahrain – without medication – pending a prosecution trial. On three dates in June, he was brought before a Military Court. It was during the opening hearing on 7 June that he first learnt of the charges against him.

Al Raas stands accused, along with 12 other men, of kidnapping a police officer and promoting crimes against the rulers. He recalls that during his interrogation period he was forced to sign a piece of paper. This has turned out to be a confession to the crimes he is being accused of – accusations that Al Raas denies.

The Bahraini rulers have shown boundless imagination in fabricating prosecution cases. For example, last month it sentenced an internationally respected human rights advocate, Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, to life in prison for “trying to overthrow the state while working for a foreign enemy”. The regime is also currently prosecuting senior surgeons and doctors that it accuses of “concealing machineguns under hospital beds” and “exaggerating the wounds of patients for propaganda purposes, resulting in the death of patients” [2].

All trials in Bahrain since the Saudi-led invasion have been conducted in Military Courts, with minimal legal counsel permitted to the defendants. In over 400 trials, confessions forced through torture are the sole basis for the prosecution case. In eerie show trial fashion, sometimes videos of defendants making confessions are even televised on Bahrain state TV before the verdicts are reached.

US not in talks with 'real Taliban'

PressTV

So called US talks with the Taliban are only with groups friendly toward Karzai in the north. The stronghold of the Taliban lies in southern Afghanistan.

Press TV talks with Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Professor at Quaid-I-Azam university, Islamabad who dissects the numerous factors influencing talks and negotiation with the Taliban and the US. Following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Our other guest Gareth Porter has said that talks with the Taliban are in part an effort by the US to sew some kind of a division between the Taliban and Pakistan. The British representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said that the talks are held with the sole aim of finding a solution to Afghanistan without any involvement of foreign players. Is that a reference to Pakistan?

Zafar Jaspal: Indeed there is an effort in Afghanistan for political settlement because Obama wants his 2012 elections to win. Public opinion in the US is very much against this war. They are not willing to pay 120 billion dollars for this war. In that context Robert Gates made the statement that if we can handle Afghanistan without Pakistan that germinates a new option for them (US) that they can deal with - And that confirms that they are confident that they can divide and deal with the Taliban without Pakistan.

However, at the same time we cannot forget what the reality on the ground is. The Taliban who are dealing with the US, their number is only 1,700 and the majority of them are from the northern side and they are not from the Taliban of other areas of Afghanistan. These people who they are engaged with are already on the payroll of Karzai.

The real cold heart of this insurgency, they are Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Omar and under the leadership of what we call Khakani - I think that will be dubious when they start feeling as if they can deal with the Taliban bypassing Pakistan. They can; but the question is - How can they secure the border?

Press TV: We have been getting contradictory statements from the White House. On the one hand we are hearing General Petraeus speaking of a need to have more troops on the ground; Gates saying there needs to be more troops on the ground, but on the other hand we hear of official confirmation that talks are underway and this has been confirmed by Britain. So do you think this show that the counter insurgency strategy has not been working and that the US is not willing to admit that?

Zafar Jaspal: I submit that we can see in what is happening within the US there is a big divide. There's a divide between the strategists; between the Pentagon; and the White House and that divide is very much visible.

When Obama was going to announce the withdrawal of 10,000 troops this year and a further 23,000 next year, General Petraeus was clearly saying that whatever we achieved they (those numbers) are not confirmed. We can see in the testimony of Admiral Mullen in the Senate he also said the same thing - it still needs two seasons that is next year 2012 and 2013 to fight with the Taliban with the same number of troops. Whereas, Obama is concerned about his next term.

If we look at the interlinked developments recently in one week, one development was the UN resolution on 17th June dividing the Taliban and al-Qaeda into two separate organizations; treating them differently. Second, on June 19th when Robert Gates admitted on CNN that yes we are in touch with the Taliban. Third, four parliamentarians of Germany have said we want the Taliban represented and according to reports they have invited the Taliban to participate in the December 2011 World conference. And fourth, on the one side they say we can without Pakistan, but we see that Karzai was in Islamabad last week and he was requesting Pakistan to support the peace reconstruction process.

All these things give us the idea that at the rhetorical level is one thing, but at the practical level is another thing. So, Americans at the rhetorical level try to save what we call their grandeur. But practically, they are unable.

US expands drone war, extremists expect new recruits

Russia Today

The US has stepped up its drone attacks against militants in the Middle East, but the growing number of civilian deaths in the strikes has sparked public anger, with concern the action is driving up the number of extremist recruits.

In Pakistan, CIA drone strikes aim at terrorists but end up killing mostly civilians. Public outrage is growing. Hatred and anger foster more terror.

“If you push them against the wall, then this militancy and terrorism is going to increase. It’s not the solution. If you are attacking them with drones and they are not part of the war, they have the Taliban on the other side, which they are going to join,” explains Mirza Shakhzad Akhtar, a Pakistani lawyer for drone attack victims.

In Pakistan in the one year, US strikes killed 700 civilians, but netted only five actual militant leaders.

Many Pakistanis are furious at their government for helping the Americans kill their own people. They accuse their leaders of doing that in exchange for billions of dollars from Washington.

Americans, on the other hand, are not too happy with what they get in return for their billions. In the wake of Osama Bin Laden’s assassination in Pakistan, the US all but accused the country’s military intelligence agency of sheltering the Al-Qaeda leader.

“How long do we support governments that lie to us? When do we say enough is enough?” Senator Patrick Leahy asked at hearings before the Senate Appropriations Committee last Thursday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ position was: “Most of the governments lied to each other. That’s how the business gets done.”

Amid all the cheerleading about Bin Laden’s killing, the US has stepped up drone strikes in Pakistan.

“Drone strikes in Pakistan and the number of civilian casualties that result because of those drone strikes are allowing extremists like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other groups present in Pakistan to recruit new members. They are doing it at an accelerating pace,” believes writer Matthew Alexander.

Washington now sees Yemen as the most dangerous Al-Qaeda outpost, and is planning to step up drone attacks on the country, establishing a base in the Persian Gulf specifically for that purpose. Especially now Bin Laden’s replacement, Ayman Al-Zawahri, is thought to be building up Al-Qaeda’s already significant presence in Yemen.

The US had been co-operating with Yemeni counter-terrorism forces in targeting Al-Qaeda, but they have since left the field, preoccupied instead with the nationwide turmoil against the Ali Saleh regime. That means the Americans are likely to have a freer hand going it alone, with the CIA to take a central role. As the agency is not subject to the accountability the US military is legally under, one can expect more bombs to fall on Yemen.

“When the US starts hitting people who are members of Al-Qaeda in the Iranian Peninsula, then I think the real worry is that it expands this war to the point where so many people will join Al-Qaeda,” Gregory Johnsen, Near East studies scholar at Princeton University, said.

There is fury in Yemen over the killing of scores of civilians by the drone strikes. In one attack there, the American military presumably aiming at an Al-Qaeda training camp ended up killing dozens of women and children. In another strike a year ago, a drone mistakenly killed a deputy governor in Yemen, his family and aides.

With the expansion of the drone war it seems the US is seeking only a missile solution to fighting Al-Qaeda. Analysts say that some of the main features of this global chase are not having to take into account the voice of the nation that they are bombing and the lack of accountability when it comes to civilian deaths. These features add more paradox to the US strategy, with many asking whether America is fighting and fostering terror at the same time.

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services

>

US envoy reproaches Afghan president on criticism

Guardian
 HEIDI VOGT

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry
speaks with General Petreaus

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan publicly reproached Afghanistan's president Sunday for painting American forces here as occupiers and enemies — one of the strongest signs yet that Afghanistan's international allies are no longer willing to excuse President Hamid Karzai's harangues as harmless domestic politicking.

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry told university students and faculty in the western city of Herat that he felt the need to speak from his heart as he reaches the end of his two-year tour as ambassador. The words that came next were strongly critical of the Afghan president, without naming Karzai.

"I find occasional comments from some of your leaders hurtful and inappropriate," Eikenberry told the crowd according to a transcript of the speech.

In recent speeches, Karzai has said the U.S. is in danger of becoming an occupying force, threatened to take unspecified "unilateral action" against international forces that conduct air strikes and accused international allies of undermining and corrupting his government.
The U.S. envoy hit back hard.

"When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost in terms of lives and treasure, hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they are only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people ... they are filled with confusion and grow weary of our effort here," Eikenberry said. "Mothers and fathers of fallen soldiers, spouses of soldiers who have lost arms and legs, children of those who lost their lives in your country — they ask themselves about the meaning of their loved one's sacrifice."

Eikenberry's tour as ambassador has been strained by his tense relationship with Karzai. In a classified memo in 2009, Eikenberry said that Karzai was not a reliable partner with whom to rebuild Afghanistan. The memo were leaked to the press, and Eikenberry has spent the time since trying to repair the fractured relationship. He has repeatedly insisted that he and Karzai work well and comfortably together.


Now, as he prepares to hand over the post to Ryan Crocker, Eikenberry appears to have decided to speak more candidly.

"When we hear ourselves being called occupiers and worse, our pride is offended, and we begin to lose our inspiration to carry on," Eikenberry said.

His words were especially ominous, coming just a month before the beginning of a scheduled drawdown of American troops. President Barack Obama has pledged to start bringing some soldiers home in July but has not yet announced how many.

Key to any drawdown is the success of plans to gradually transfer oversight of Afghan cities and towns to national security forces. Karzai has said that seven areas will transfer to Afghan control in July, at the same time that the first drawdowns begin.

Some of the very areas slated to transition have been struck by high-profile attacks in recent weeks. Herat city was struck by Taliban insurgents last month and Kabul was hit on Saturday by militants dressed in Afghan army uniforms who charged a police station and killed nine people before they were gunned down.

In the latest violence, a suicide attacker in northern Kunduz province blew up his explosives-laden car next to a German military convoy in northern Afghanistan on Sunday, killing three Afghan civilians, officials and witnesses said.

Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, said Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid
The violence continues despite assertions by Karzai that fledgling peace talks have started between the U.S. and Afghan government and Taliban emissaries. Reports about such talks have surfaced in recent months, but Karzai's statement Saturday was the first public confirmation of U.S. participation. Publicly, the Taliban say there will be no negotiations until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.
The White House has neither directly confirmed or denied Karzai's statements.

On Sunday, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said he didn't believe the Taliban would engage in serious talks about ending their fight until they are under extreme military pressure. Gates acknowledged that "there's been outreach" to the Taliban by the U.S. and others, but he describes the contacts as "very preliminary at this point."

Such talks may be gaining momentum after the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Friday to treat al-Qaida and the Taliban separately when it comes to U.N. sanctions, a move aimed at supporting the Afghan government's reconciliation efforts.
 

US dithers on Afghanistan troop withdrawal

Brisbane Times

No "rush to the exits" for US troops ... an
Afghan National Police graduation ceremony
at an International Security Assistance Force operating base
in Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON: The incoming US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, has declined to put a figure on imminent US troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, while increasing the prospect of American forces staying in Iraq longer than originally planned.

Mr Panetta, the present head of the CIA, told a congressional committee that it would be up to the President, Barack Obama, the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and the commander of forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, to call the shots on the drawdown, due to start next month.
But in somewhat contradictory testimony, the 72-year-old long-time Washington insider appeared to back both Mr Obama's pledge of a ''significant'' cut in troop numbers as well as endorse Mr Gates's call for a ''modest'' pull-back.

 

Questioned by the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, which is expected to rubber-stamp his Pentagon appointment, Mr Panetta said it was impossible to be specific on numbers before he assumed his new role.

He agreed with recent assessments that there had been progress on security in Afghanistan, ''albeit fragile and reversible''.

But asked by a Republican senator, John McCain, whether he agreed with Mr Gates's more cautious position on withdrawals, Mr Panetta said: ''I agree that they should be conditions-based. And I'm going to leave it up to Secretary Gates and [the others] to decide what that number should be.''
Pressed further, he said: ''I'll have to obviously arrive at a decision myself. I'm not in that position now.''

Opinions differ wildly on how many troops should leave. Senator McCain nominates just 3000 of the nearly 100,000-strong force; his fellow committee member Carl Levin, a Democrat, says ''at least 15,000 troops'' should be sent home this year.

Mr Gates, meanwhile, continued to portray the drawdown as minimalist, telling NATO defence ministers in Brussels on Thursday that a reduction in American troops should not signal a mass exodus of allied forces.

The long-serving Mr Gates, who leaves his post on June 30, has cautioned against withdrawing combat troops, saying the US was looking for a way to reduce its ''surge'' numbers without compromising the safety of those remaining on the ground.

''Even as the United States begins to draw down next month, I assured my fellow ministers that there will be no rush to the exits on our part - and we expect the same from our allies,'' he told reporters.
More Americans now say it is time for the US to get out of Afghanistan, with almost half of those surveyed in opinion polls since the May 2 killing of Osama bin Laden claiming the allies are at last winning.

And Mr Obama claimed last week that a ''big chunk'' of objectives in Afghanistan had now been achieved.

In a CNN poll out yesterday, 74 per cent of respondents endorsed the drawdown; 39 per cent said it was time to leave altogether.

Mr Obama increased US troop numbers in Afghanistan by more than 30,000, copying the Iraqi troop surge ordered by George Bush in 2007 that provided enough stability for Mr Obama to scale back forces there last year.

However, Mr Panetta said it was likely that Iraq would ask the US to keep some of its remaining 47,000 troops in that country beyond 2011, making a complete withdrawal problematic. Such a request should be ''seriously considered'', he said, warning that there were more al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq than there were in Afghanistan.

"[Iraq], too, continues to be a fragile situation … we should take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that we protect whatever progress we've made there."
IN addition, Mr Panetta also:

Warned that America's ''next Pearl Harbour'' could be a cyber-attack on the US that crippled its electrical grid and security and financial systems.

Described US relations with Pakistan as complicated and frustrating, but also critical.
Promised to complete this year Mr Gates's review of the $US400 billion in proposed defence budget cuts.

US Attacks Pakistan: Pakistan Forces to be Alert

 pakistankakhudahafiz
 By Raja G Mujtaba

Most people tend to brush aside as conspiracy theory what are clearly Zionist designs. But what is often dismissed as conspiracy theory turns out to be an intuitive analysis that is firmly grounded in little known historical facts. If people are unaware of history and want to keep their eyes shut, they are most welcome to do so; but then episodes like Abbottabad will continue to be repeated, and the people nominally in power will have not a word to offer in protest.

In February 2010, Jeff Gates, the author of Guilt By Association, was in Pakistan, where he met almost all those who were concerned with Pakistan’s security. Jeff’s only pitch was that Israel and its Zionist supporters are out to destroy Pakistan, with India also playing a part. Israel would not conduct open raids against Pakistan; instead, the U.S. would be given the dirty task. Wherever he went, he explained two theories on which the Zionist operatives are working. He quoted Robert Gates, the former U.S. Secretary of Defence, who had said that the most dangerous enemies are the “people in between” who replace facts with falsehood to create perceptions. By this, he meant primarily the role of the Zionist-controlled media who would never allow facts to be revealed to the public but convey a picture that suits their agenda. Here Jeff also discussed field-based warfare where a chart would be drawn, false flag operations would be filled in the fields that would all lead or point to Pakistan. After having conducted several such operations, Pakistan would be declared as the next “evil doer.” This is what has happened today; Pakistan is being accused of harbouring terrorists—therefore, Pakistan, the evil doer, must be attacked to eliminate such elements. Jeff and Gordon Duff (who was also here) went on the TV to appraise the Pakistani people of the situation.

Things have not stopped here. Pakistan’s fragmentation is also on the cards, not to forget Blaochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Tehrike Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Awami National Party (ANP) and Muthahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), all of which have a very shady background and their linkages with India, CIA, MI6 and Mossad etc. are well known. BLA and TTP were in direct contact with Raymond Davis. Here I would not absolve parties like Peoples Party and almost all the factions of Pakistan Muslim League that have no vision or commitment to Pakistan except their personal agendas.
Beginning with 9/11, all false flag operations, be it Dr Aafia Siddiqui, Faisal Shahzad in Times Square, New York; the London bombings; the Madrid train bombings; and the Mumbai hotel, where Ajmal Kasaab, an Indian Hindu was projected as a Pakistani citizen, was played up so much to make it certain that he be accepted as a Pakistani. Here our own media, especially Geo, played a very dirty role.

When Jeff was here, he asked all those whom he met, “Please help us to help you expose the real enemy of both Pakistan and the Unites States.” But it appears his request and pleading fell on deaf ears.

Now, starting from Raymond Davis, all those stories that were buried as “conspiracy theories” have come out of the closets. The attack on Abbotabad is the first visible indication that the U.S. is being induced to attack Pakistan to take out its nukes.

Whether Osama was real or fake is of no consequence when looking at the Pakistan’s security situation. Pakistan’s airspace has been violated in spite of the fact when we have all sorts of radars. Where were our AWACS to detect the ground-hugging fliers? To say that we were not expecting any external threat is hardly credible. It’s well known that the Zionist-controlled U.S. is no friend of ours. She has struck has several times in the past, all under the cover of friendship.

Certainly this raid on the supposed Osama hideout next to the Pakistan Military Academy, with half a dozen other regimental centers in close vicinity, has given tons of experience and confidence to the U.S. that could now propel them to reach our nuclear installations. If this happens, then what would our military planners say after the raid has been carried out? Would they advance the same argument: “an attack from the west was not imminent hence we had our defences down”? Not only America but now both India and Israel also know that Pakistan can be caught unawares, so they might also be looking forward to making a sneak raid. Knowing that both these countries have a strong presence in Afghanistan, and India also has an operational base in Tajikistan with SU 30s on the ground, they would always be on the look out for opportunities. Keeping the present security failure in mind, India stands a fairly good chance of success.

Now it’s about time that Pakistan should reassess her relationship with the United States. On this, I asked Maidhc Ó Cathail, an analyst of U.S. foreign policy, who said, “Unless Pakistan ends its abusive relationship with the U.S., the relationship is going to end Pakistan — much to the delight of India and Israel. As far as I see it, Pakistan should be forming a defensive alliance with China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Myanmar and other countries targeted for destabilization by the powers that be.” 

Why can’t Pakistan talk straight and tell the U.S. that 9/11 was a false flag operation, with much of the evidence indicating that it was staged and manipulated by the Mossad? And therefore it has nothing to do with the so-called “war on terror,” that in fact emerged only after the killing of hundreds and thousands of innocents (collaterals) that produced terrorists from every house in the affected areas.

Pakistan should distance itself from this insane war being waged in the name of fighting terrorism—but which is actually targeting Muslims and Islam. Since 9/11, so many independent investigations have been carried out, all saying the same thing, that it was a false flag operation conducted for the benefit of Zionist Israel and the closely-linked military-industrial complex of the United States. I did refer this question to Anthony Lawson, an eminent investigative reporter who has done in-depth research on 9/11 and other false flag operations, who said, “Why should anyone believe anything that comes out of the United States any more?  Quite clearly, the original 9/11 story was full of holes, as I have already mentioned in my interview with Kourosh Ziabari.  I have also read, many times, that the FBI says it has “no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”.  And, on top of that, there are many people who think that Mr bin Laden died or was killed a long time ago.

Furthermore, the so-called terrorist organisation: al Qaeda, was an invention of the CIA’s during its attempts to get the Russians out of Afghanistan.  Apparently, to their clandestine operatives, al Qaeda meant something like “The List” or “The Database” of some of Osama bin Laden’s own operatives.  

This kind of shorthand slang is quite common in many organisations, but this one suddenly morphed into a fully-fledged terrorist organisation with as many branches as 7-Eleven, or Pakistan’s equivalent of that ubiquitous 24-hour American convenience-shop, only days after September 11th, 2001.  As I state in my video:  9/11: The Unidentified Murder Weapons Osama bin Laden has denied that he ever claimed responsibility [for 9/11].  Almost anyone with a telephone or Internet access can claim to be a member of al Qaeda and make such threats; including U.S. government employees.

It [al Qaeda] has affiliates wherever the CIA or CNN or the BBC, without providing any proof, like to imagine they have affiliates, and they are now describing suspects who were apprehended prior to 2001, when the name al Qaeda was coined, as being members of an organisation that was yet to be invented.

Other than the above, I couldn’t begin to guess what effect this is going to have on Pakistan/U.S. relations.  Diplomats and politicians have a way of spinning such incidents to suit their own agendas, whether or not there are any real issues of cause and effect, and any nation or group that wanted to mount a false-flag operation and to blame it on al Qaeda are probably well into the planning stages, as I write this.  Such an event is like an announcement that it is open season for terrorist attacks, real or pseudo.”

On the Osama operation, the statements of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are very meaningful. Kerry said that the U.S. is assessing the strategical capabilities of Pakistan. This is a very loaded statement, meaning an attack on Pakistan could be imminent, but before that Pakistan’s strength has to be fully assessed. Clinton is saying that the U.S. has every reason to believe that Mullah Omar and other outfits are also present in Pakistan.

China has given a serious warning to the US not to mess with Pakistan, messing with Islamabad would be taken as messsing with Beijing. This warning from China is indicative that things are very serious and we must not relax.

For Pakistan it’s a very clear message: would Pakistan’s military leadership of all three services reassess the need to make a clean break from the U.S. and look towards other options to meet our national aspirations? What General Kayani said on the martyrs day “that economic development of Pakistan is essential but at what cost? Should it be at the cost of national sovereignty and honour?”

 This pledge needs to be translated into action immediately. It has a lot more weight to it today than ever before. The national leadership inclusive of the military leadership should cut down on expenses and set an example of austerity.Theleadership, both political and the military must tone down their lifestyle to an ordinary level and give up the princely styles so that we can stand on our own feet within our available resources. Given the lead, the nation would follow with pride.

Lets not waste any more time and build the pipeline from Iran for our hydrocarbon needs. The same pipeline should also be extended to China that would make its defence the joint responsibility of all the three countries.

War on Terror Promises Era of Persistent Conflict

Miller-McCune
Jeff Shear


This is the last of a three-part look at the evolution of the American military.

The phrase "persistent conflict" has
become a subject of speculation in both
military and civilian circles, as America's
commitment to Iraq winds down, Afghanistan
promises to draw down troops
in July, and a new combat
mission in Libya is under way.
(MC2 Edwin L. Wriston/DefenseImagery.mil)

Struggling to wind down the longest war in American history, retiring Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. lobbed a bomb. He described a future rife with “persistent conflict.” The phrase, which was long studied and carefully forged over several years by the Pentagon, has become a subject of speculation in both military and civilian circles, as America’s commitment to Iraq winds down, Afghanistan promises to draw down troops in July, and a new combat mission in Libya is under way, roiling the already tumultuous Middle East.

(Having fulfilled his three-year commitment, Casey stepped down on April 10, 2011, and was replaced by General Martin E. Dempsey, the commanding general at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.)

The term represents a link in a chain of events that began in 1973 with the creation of an all-volunteer military. Less than 20 years later, those volunteers had evolved into a well-oiled professional fighting machine, able to project power anywhere around the globe.

The bloodbath in the Balkans gave rise to a second link, when the U.S. contributed troops and aircraft to separate the warring factions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Large numbers of private contractors were hired to support the military. Those numbers multiplied in Iraq and Afghanistan, as more and more of the military’s capabilities were privatized. Without professionals and privatization, “persistent conflict” would be unlikely.

In hindsight, the nation may have been preparing for a future of “persistent conflict” since Bosnia in 1995. A one-year commitment in the Balkans ended nine years later in 2004, overlapping two other wars.

Casey began talking publicly about “persistent conflict” in an August 2007 speech before the National Press Club in Washington. His new job had begun that April as a presidential campaign ramped up and the situation in Iraq wound down.

During the first month at his desk, Casey saw four bombings in Baghdad kill 198 people. That same April, a suicide bomber entered the Iraqi Parliament building, killing one representative and wounding 22. The attack had taken place “inside the wire,” in the fortress-like Green Zone that held the American embassy, the Iraqi government and all of the major news bureaus.

Before the end of his first month on the job, Casey’s boss, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, delivered more bad news. America’s shell-shocked troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have their 12-month tours stretched out to 16 months. It was not long before Casey began calling the relentless rotation of troops in and out of combat zones the “new normal.”

While Casey has never been an alarmist or played on the nation’s fears, he foresees a persistent campaign against violent extremist groups like al-Qaeda. As he sees it, the Army must be prepared to deal with a full “spectrum” of potential conflicts. For the future not only holds the danger of terrorism and the rise of failed states, but also struggles to gain control of diminishing resources — energy, food, water — made more acute by a new status quo.

The nuclear dangers of Iran, Pakistan and North Korea loom large, but natural resources and mineral wealth have long been a spigot of state power. In the months leading up to World War II, the U.S. and several other nations used an oil embargo to pressure Japan into diplomatic concessions. They received no concessions and Japan ultimately responded with an attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 2006 and 2009, Russia cut off gas supplies in a trade dispute with Ukraine. That threatened one-quarter of the natural gas consumed by fuel hungry Europe, large parts of which fall under the protective arm of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Still, there are “people in the Pentagon who say that ‘persistent conflict’ does not necessarily mean ‘persistent combat,’” says Nathan Freier, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It is unlikely that the U.S. will be participating in large-scale serial wars.”

Freier had been part of the Pentagon team that developed the concept of persistent conflict. “There are people who are going to push back against U.S. influence around the world for a variety of motivations,” he says. “Conflict is not necessarily violent. We were thinking along the lines of ‘persistent conflict and resistance,’ a kind of push-back — economic, political and advisory responses other than combat.”

Whatever “persistent conflict” comes to mean, the Army is building what it calls a more modular force, one that allows specialized units to mix and match capabilities. The Army that will emerge from Iraq or Afghanistan — whether it finally leaves or stays behind in the name of stability — will have to be flexible enough to face an unpredictable future.

Professor Richard H. Kohn studies the connections between the military and American society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “The term [persistent conflict] serves to explain why General Casey is moving toward an expeditionary army,” meaning a force that can be readily inserted into a conflict, Kohn says. A recent release from the U.S. Army War College’s electronic newsletter described the move to a modular Army as momentous: “[The Army's] largest transformation since World War II.” That means the great land army will no longer rely on massive divisions to enter combat, but rely on smaller Lego-styled brigades that can be shaped to the circumstances. Speaking at the annual war college strategy conference in 2010, (see video here) retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Frier said, “Once, the gold standard of risk assessment for DOD was the ability to conduct two major war simultaneously, it is now the ability to simultaneously conduct dissimilar missions of widely varying scope and intensity.”

In early April 2011, U.S. forces were conducting dissimilar missions: The Navy was launching missiles and aircraft against Libya, while special forces units ran covert operations on the ground; the Army was shipping out and closing down bases in Iraq, while preparing to leave behind 150 uniformed personnel to work with security contractors to train Iraqi police and military; troops in Afghanistan were gearing up for a spring offensive against the Taliban (in a combat operation that had initially been aimed at al-Qaeda); elsewhere the Navy was off the coast of Japan performing humanitarian services while, at the same time, watching over its bases there.

The War College’s strategic conference also broached the problem of “indecisive wars,” which might be described as the residual effect of persistent conflict. Such wars would not be aimed at winning, but at containing or controlling a threat. While the Army has fought indecisive wars in the past, it was seldom by plan. If Kohn is correct, the new Army must be prepared to face up to this new reality: engaging in warfare that may not have a final outcome; war in which there will be no walk-off victory.
Another clear message emerging after 15 years of persistent conflict, beginning in Bosnia, is that troops wear out. Humans cannot simply be refitted and sent back into battle. The Army Times reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs has found that 44 percent of Iraq-Afghanistan war vets seeking treatment suffer war-related mental problems.

These numbers are only a slice of the real problem. Though the VA says it has treated a total of 178,483 individual veterans from 2002 to 2008 with war-related mental problems, or 24 percent of the 1.7 million men and women who have been in combat zones, a separate study by the RAND Corporation found that many soldiers don’t seek help for fear of repercussions. So the actual percentage of mental problems could be far higher.

Dr. Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and the author of Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, is alarmed. “There is emerging evidence that shows that we’ve got a new generation of veterans that is going to have all kinds of problems. And that’s going to cost a lot of money. I believe it’s true that 40 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have left the service have already filed for some kind of disability with the Veterans Administration, and that’s a huge number. And it’s a much large percentage than it was in previous wars.”

And if the soldiers are wearing out, so is their weaponry. None of the military’s gear was designed for 10 years of constant use. Workhorse systems, like the venerable C-130 aircraft used in transport and modified to go into battle as gunships, are falling apart. Air Force Lt. Col. Brenda Cartier commanded a squadron of these aircraft and says “the wing-boxes [have worn out] and need to be replaced.” Wing-boxes keep the wings attached to the fuselage.

In the end, the meaning of “persistent conflict” may ultimately be defined by the federal budget. The January/February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs had this: “The United States faces a watershed moment: It must decide whether to increase its already massive debt in order to continue being the world’s sheriff, or restrain its military missions and focus on economic recovery. …”

The authors of the article, Matthew Leatherman, a research associate for Washington’s Stimson Center, and Gordon Adams, a professor at American University and the former associate director for national security and international affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, see Pentagon spending in retreat.

“Secretary Gates is engaged in budgetary trench warfare,” Adams says. “He’s basically retreating one trench at a time, conceding that we’re at a turning point.”

Adams, who spent five years analyzing defense dollars in the Clinton administration, dismisses the concept of persistent conflict as a “fantasy.” He argues that the Defense Department has drawn the wrong lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is that persistent conflict cannot mean persistent combat. It is both physically and fiscally impossible.

“We’re not going to fight insurgencies forever,” Adams says. “Casey has built a myth around Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that there will be an endless series of such wars that require a very large army.” Adams believes that the real lesson is more ironic: that when you invade a country, even a failed state, “you create your own insurgency.” His comments suggest that “persistent conflict” may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

US atrocities reach all time high in Afghanistan

Media Monitors
by Zia Sarhadi

"The purpose for which Afghanistan was invaded — to secure safe passage for a gas and oil pipeline from Central Asia and lay hands on the rich mineral deposits of Afghanistan — has not been achieved so far. Yet there is growing anxiety among ordinary Americans over the extended military mission that has nearly bankrupted America. Unemployment is high, the debt is rising and American cities are crumbling while the US pours billions of dollars into a war that appears to have no end or any identifiable benchmarks by which to measure progress. US officials talk optimistically about training Afghan police and army but the targets they have set have not been met so far."

---

Even as American officials optimistically talk about starting troop withdrawal from Afghanistan according to schedule in July, news about their atrocities continue to send shock waves globally. Recent reports and photos of torture and mutilation of Afghan civilians make Abu Ghraib look like a mild affair. These crimes are compounded by denials that the Americans have done or are capable of doing anything wrong since these are contrary to American “standards and values.” Their victims know better.

This past winter, American troops murdered even more Afghan civilians than in previous years. And true to form, they routinely claim the attacks were aimed at militants and that no civilians were killed. There has been a spate of such attacks in recent weeks that have soured relations between the US military and the Afghan government. To their customary brutality, the Americans have now added another tactic. Following a particularly gruesome attack in Ghaziabad district of Kunar province in late February, General David Petraeus said Afghan civilians had “deliberately burnt” their children’s legs and arms to make the attack look bad.

“I was dizzy. My head was spinning,” said an aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, referring to Petraeus’s remarks, during a meeting. “This was shocking. Would any father do this to his [own] children? This is really absurd.” Fazlullah Wahidi, governor of Kunar province, said at least 50 women and children perished in the attack carried out by US Apache helicopters. While the dust had not settled over this incident, NATO air strikes killed another nine children on March 1. Again, the Americans initially claimed these were insurgents. Later they apologized when it was confirmed that these were boys collecting wood in the mountains. Gates apologized for the attacks as did Obama. A day earlier, Afghans had demonstrated in Kabul against such attacks and Karzai angrily rejected an apology from Petraeus.

During a visit to Asadabad, capital of Kunar province on March 11, Karzai said NATO and the US should stop their operations in Afghanistan. “I ask NATO and US, with honor and humbleness and not with arrogance, to stop its operations on our soil,” Karzai said. The children were between the ages of 7 and 13 and collecting firewood in the Manogay district when they came under bombardment.

“Afghans want peace and security and they cooperate with the world to bring peace and security,” Karzai said. “But we don’t want this war to continue any longer. We don’t want to repeat such bombardments and casualties.” The Americans have paid no attention to such appeals in the past; they are not likely to pay heed now and will dismiss them with contempt, regardless of how much suffering they cause.

Meanwhile, there was even more shocking news when the German weekly, Dier Spiegel on March 20 published photos of Afghan civilians killed by US soldiers and then posed with their naked bodies. The London daily, the Guardian, compared them to the photos of detainees tortured and humiliated in Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison. The British daily reported “commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of ‘trophy’ photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed” (March 21). Some senior NATO officials have expressed fears the pictures could be even more damaging as they show the aftermath of deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by a rogue US Stryker tank unit that operated in the southern province of Qandahar last year.

Some of the activities of the American “kill team” are already public knowledge; 12 men are currently on trial in Seattle for their role in the killing of three civilians. Five soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder, after they staged killings to make it look like they were defending themselves against Taliban attacks. Other charges include the mutilation of corpses, the possession of images of human casualties and drug abuse. Other soldiers cut body parts of victims as “trophies”. The Dier Spiegel report says there are approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the men.

True to form, the US military has tried to keep the photos out of the public domain fearing it could damage its already tarnished reputation, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan where anti-American sentiment is running very high. Also typically, the US army apologized for the distress caused by photographs “depicting actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States.” But such actions by US soldiers are so routine that it is mind-boggling for the US army to claim these run contrary to their “standards and values.” These are precisely the standards of the US from Bagram and Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. The latest batch of photos simply confirms a pattern of behaviour common among US soldiers, crossing all limits of human decency and dignity. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Afghans and people elsewhere, look upon Americans with disgust and wish to have nothing to do with them.

Dier Spiegel also narrates another episode that occurred last May. An Afghan religious leader, standing by the road perhaps waiting for a ride, was apprehended by the “kill team”, taken to a ditch and made to kneel down. The staff sergeant, one Calvin Gibbs, then threw a grenade at the man while an order was given for him to be shot. As if this was not enough, Gibbs then cut the man’s little finger and pulled one of his teeth out.

With the publication of Dier Spiegel’s report and photos, many organizations that employ foreign staff, including the United Nations, ordered their staff into a “lockdown”, banning all movements around Kabul and requiring people to remain in their compounds. One security manager for the US company DynCorp sent an email to clients warning that publication of the photos was likely “to incite the local population” as the “severity of the incidents to be revealed are graphic and extreme.”

The Americans do not wish to improve their manners. After each act of barbarism that exceeds their previous atrocious behaviour, they put out a press release dismissing the incident as not in accord with American standards and values. What precisely are these values the Americans are so eager to export to the rest of the world through cruise missiles and “kill teams”?

Amid reports of American crimes against humanity, a debate is raging in the official circles whether they are staying in Afghanistan or leaving? They appear to be speaking from both sides of their mouth. The purpose for which Afghanistan was invaded — to secure safe passage for a gas and oil pipeline from Central Asia and lay hands on the rich mineral deposits of Afghanistan — has not been achieved so far. Yet there is growing anxiety among ordinary Americans over the extended military mission that has nearly bankrupted America. Unemployment is high, the debt is rising and American cities are crumbling while the US pours billions of dollars into a war that appears to have no end or any identifiable benchmarks by which to measure progress. US officials talk optimistically about training Afghan police and army but the targets they have set have not been met so far.

During an unannounced visit to Kabul on March 7, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the US was “well-positioned” to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July. This was the date President Barack Obama had set on December 1, 2009 when he announced a 30,000-troop surge for Afghanistan. But Gates also said the US would remain involved in Afghanistan even after the 2014 date, when the withdrawal of troops is scheduled to be completed. American officials always leave caveats so that they have wiggle room to manouvre and implement whatever policy they want.

But their atrocious behaviour is turning even ordinary Afghans against them. They wish to have nothing to do with the Americans, their hi-tech weapons and their dollars. They would rather be left alone to their poverty-stricken but safe life, free from Hell-fire missiles and Apache helicopter attacks.

Gen.: U.S. troops not ideal, but may be considered in Libya

Army Gen. Carter Ham says some in U.S. may weigh sending in ground troops as part of international force to aid rebels, but doesn't endorse move

(CBS/AP)

Libyan rebels riding on the back of an armed
pickup truck retreat east towards Benghazi from
Ajdabiya, Libya, April 7, 2011

WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

Complete coverage: Anger in the Arab World

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Muammar Qaddafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.

The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster rebels fighting forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked if the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

Video: Ex-Rep. Weldon on Libya visit, Qaddafi meeting

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told lawmakers last week that there would be no American ground troops in Libya "as long as I am in this job."

Ham disclosed that the United States is providing some strike aircraft to the NATO operation that do not need to go through the special approval process recently established. The powerful side-firing AC-130 gunship is available to NATO commanders, he said.

Other strike aircraft, including fighters and the A-10 Thunderbolt, which can provide close air support for ground forces, must be requested through U.S. European Command and approved by top U.S. leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Ham said that process is quick, and other defense officials have said it can take about a day for the U.S. to approve the request and move the aircraft in from bases in Europe.

Ham said recent bad weather and threats from Qaddafi's mobile surface-to-air missile systems hampered efforts to use aircraft like the AC-130 and the A-10 to provide close air support for friendly ground forces. He says those conditions contributed to the stalemate.

Since the U.S. handed off the strike mission to NATO, U.S. planes account for only 15 percent of NATO planes now doing those air attacks, Ham said.

Military to Iraq: Are You Really Gonna Kick Us Out?

Danger Room

There are fewer than nine months left in the U.S. military’s long war in Iraq. By the end of the year, the remaining 47,000 U.S. troops will finish packing up their gear and leaving. It’s safe to say their leaders are feeling a certain separation anxiety.

Most notably, Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Iraq last week and loudly warned that its fractious political leadership was running out of time to request the U.S. to stay. If that construction seems odd — and reminiscent of a jilted lover — it’s out of diplomatic necessity and bureaucratic reality.  The U.S. and Iraq signed an accord in 2008 mandating a full military withdrawal. To halt that withdrawal requires a cumbersome renegotiation, and the host nation has to initiate it. Clock’s ticking.

Gates has signaled for months that he’d be open to keeping some residual force in Iraq. But now that Iraq has traded places with Afghanistan as a “forgotten war,” he’s been a chorus of one. Now the military command in Baghdad is starting to register angst. An anonymous senior military official assembled reporters on Wednesday to warn that a continued U.S. presence would be “best for Iraq,” especially if the country wants to avoid the political turmoil plaguing its neighbors.

That’s an odd message to send. The U.S. war in Iraq has been an anguished experience. Nearly 4450 U.S. troops have lost their lives there — most recently on Sunday. And the two-year long drawdown has largely been successful, even while Iraq spent months without an elected government in 2010, avoiding the predictions of a return to chaos. Now that getting out looks doable, U.S. officials aren’t arguing that staying in Iraq is in the U.S. interest, they’re arguing it’s a great deal for the Iraqis.

But it’s not hard to see what’s going on. Precisely because the U.S. war was so arduous, many in uniform have whispered for months that they’re wary of the post-Saddam enterprise collapsing in the wake of an American pullout. After this year, the U.S. military presence will diminish to a few hundred troops to help with U.S. weapons sales and training. But the State Department will raise a hired army of 5,500 contractors — something it’s never done before — to protect 17,000 civilian employees. All this while the Mideast is in the midst of a historic wave of revolution. No wonder there’s some anxiety at U.S. Forces-Iraq.

U.S. defense officials have said they’ve heard from their Iraqi military counterparts that they want the U.S. to stay. Indeed, last August, the chief of the Iraqi military said he’d need U.S. help until 2020. Politically, that’s been a nonstarter, owing to the residual desire among Iraqis to be done with U.S. occupation. Tens of thousands of Iraqis loyal to the U.S.’ nemesis, Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, greeted Gates’ comments with protests pledging a renewed insurgency. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki needs Sadr’s support to govern.

There’s a similar dynamic in Washington. Barack Obama won the presidency in part by pledging an end to the Iraq war. That’s a promise he’s on track to keep ahead of his reelection, and his top aides have shown no sign of backing off. Gates is on his way out of the Pentagon this year, so he’s free to speak his mind. (He certainly feels Iraq is more central to U.S. interests than an ill-defined war in Libya.) The idea, in a nutshell, is that Obama would be boxed into staying if Maliki came forward and requested it.

In other words, the obstacles to a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq are the leaders of both countries — one of whom wants to get out in order to stay in power, and the other can’t ask his counterpart to stay for fear of losing power. Both of them feel there’s greater political risk to a prolonged U.S. military presence then to its end, but that calculation carries the risk of alienating their defense establishments. Nine years of a painful war should have taught everybody that getting out is the hardest part of all.

Two US soldiers killed in Iraq; Pentagon hints at permanent occupation

Liberation

No 'end of combat' now, or possibly ever

Millionaire businessman Robert Gates
tells troops in Iraq why they must risk
their lives there forever.

On April 2, U.S. Army Staff Sergeants Quadi Hudgins and Christian Garcia were killed by indirect fire while on their “non-combat” outpost in Babil, Iraq.

This is what the “end” of the Iraq war looks like for troops on the ground.

Attacks from rockets and mortars on bases housing U.S. soldiers are not out of the ordinary—they are a regular occurrence. They have continued to kill and maim U.S. troops since the “end of combat” was announced.

Less than a week later, on April 8, Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Iraq. He said that those bases where U.S. troops are under constant attack will likely remain for years, if not forever.

The Washington Post reported that Gates indicated that the Pentagon was considering options “from staying an extra couple of years to remaining in Iraq as permanent partners.”

The war in Iraq has long been exposed as an illegal war of aggression, based on blatant and willful lies about non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” The myth of the Iraqi people wanting U.S. “liberation” was shattered when the masses of Iraqi people in every town and from all walks of life rose up against the occupation. The American people overwhelmingly turned against the war too, demanding that it end, forcing the incoming Democratic Party to promise a full withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011.

But despite what the vast majority of people in both the United States and Iraq want, and what the politicians in Washington promised to do once elected, the Pentagon has another plan. They want us, our friends and our family, to continue to die in Iraq for a lie, for many more years, possibly forever.
So much for the Democrats’ promises. So much for our “great democracy.”


The Iraqi people will resist

Gates went so far as to make the ridiculous assertion that he would base his decision on “what the Iraqis want.”

The Iraqi people responded to Gates’ comments the very next day by taking to the streets in the tens of thousands, burning effigies of U.S. soldiers, chanting “Leave, leave, occupier,” and vowing to return back to full-scale armed struggle if the withdrawal deadline is not honored.

The “Iraqis” that Gates was referring to were not the Iraqi masses, but wealthy Iraqi politicians. They are the ones who have been carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture, restrictions on the press, corruption and smashing of rival political groups—the same things that Saddam Hussein was accused of doing.

The Iraqi people will never accept foreign occupation—especially one that taken the lives of over one million innocent people, made five million refugees, and reduced its cities to rubble. That is why they are still fighting today, although there has been a lull in violence. But that lull is not at all permanent, and if the U.S. remains past its promised withdrawal deadline, Iraq will once again become a bloodbath for U.S. troops.

The Mahdi Army militia, which nearly defeated the U.S. military and only stopped fighting because over 100,000 were put on the Pentagon’s payroll, vowed to return to battle if troops remain in Iraq one day past the withdrawal deadline. Other groups vowed to return or step-up attacks as well. A return to heavy combat in Iraq is right around the corner.

But that is of little concern to Gates and his team in the Pentagon. They care nothing about our lives. They have already sent 5,000 service members to their deaths while they kick to the curb those who come home. They only calculate what level of death and destruction they can get away with to achieve their imperial aims.


CEOs giving us orders

When Gates spoke to troops in Mosul about why they must keep fighting in Iraq, he was speaking to a room of soldiers who have absolutely nothing in common with him. He spoke to a room full of young people escaping rampant unemployment, increasingly unaffordable college tuition and the substantial cost of providing health care and a home for their families.

Gates, on the other hand, has lived a life of luxury in Ivy League schools and plush offices. The closest he has ever been to war is his long career in the corporate boardrooms of the same defense contractors and oil giants making a killing off of the occupations.

This millionaire Boeing executive is telling us “Keep risking life and limb, keep leaving your families behind, keep fighting this unpopular war for Shell and Halliburton.”

If he said it this bluntly, none of us would fight. Why would we endlessly risk our lives for the bonus check of some Wall Street fat cat? So, they change the language, and say it is for “democracy” and “helping the Iraqi people.”

If Gates and his billionaire friends want to keep a foothold in Iraq to gobble up its resources, then maybe they should put on uniforms and patrol its streets. Maybe they should lose their legs, be maimed, be psychologically traumatized, be carried home in coffins—instead of luring us with a job and college money to do it for them.

That’s why we have the right to refuse to fight. This is their war, not ours.


Only the people can end the war

They only promised to leave Iraq, they only began the drawdown because there was such popular opposition to the war; protests shook the country and soldiers began refusing their orders, speaking out about the criminality of the war, and joining the ranks of the anti-war movement.
If left to its own devices, Washington will continue to send us to die in Iraq for “years” or even “permanently.”

The politicians will only end the war when they are forced to do so. A vibrant anti-war movement, in the streets and in the military, has the power to do that. Join us in building that movement.