by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov

Willing to secure local domains and fight alongside Western forces, many of Afghanistan’s warlords are paid by U.S. and NATO commanders as “private security” businesses—even though these arrangements are threatening to undermine the West’s mission of establishing democracy in the country.

by The Hindu

In this image taken from undated video made available from Taliban sources purpotedly shows Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, right, reading a statement to camera vowing revenge for the death of Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, while sitting next to the new leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud. Jordanian doctor Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, is identified by news organizations to be the man who killed seven CIA employees in a suicide attack in Afghanistan on December 30. The authenticity of this video is unconfirmed.

The suicide strike on the key U.S. intelligence base in Afghanistan had hallmarks of an operation carried out by a national intelligence service, a leading U.S. think-tank has said, apparently hinting that it could be the handiwork of Pakistan’s ISI or its rogue elements.

“The hit was by all account a masterful piece of trade craft beyond the known abilities of a group like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan,” U.S. think-tank Stratfors said.

“The Jordanians penetration of the CIA was less like the product of an insurgency than an operation carried out by a national intelligence service. And this is the most troubling aspect for the U.S.,” the think tank said.

The speculation about a possible ISI hand in the suicide attack is being traced back to U.S. and Afghan government sources who said in the analysis of explosives used, it was found they were of standard military grade which points to the ISI.

Stratfors deduction comes even as al-Jazeera TV said the Jordanian bomber Khali Abu Mulal al-Balawi was brought to the U.S. base in Khost in eastern Afghanistan by car from across the border in Pakistan.

The agency which was one of the TV channels which beamed a footage of al-Balawi alongside Pakistan Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud said the video showed “there was clearly a link between Pakistani Taliban headed by Hakimullah Mehsud and some of the al-Qaeda elements operating in Pakistan.

The Arab TV channel said, this video was expected and “everybody in the tribal border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan was told al-Balawi had recored a message before he went to his mission to blow the American Chapman base.” The channel said that the video would provide the Afghan government “more ammunition” with which to criticise their counterparts in Pakistan. “This is definitely something that is going to put more pressure on the Pakistanis in the future and will definitely make the Afghans and the Americans change their strategy as far as dealing with eastern Afghanistan.”

Stratfors, in an in depth analysis of the hit on the CIA base, said as the Jordanian bomber exited the vehicle on December 30, the security guards at the Chapman base noticed he was behaving strangely. As the guards moved towards al-Balawi screaming for him to take his hands out of his pocket, the Jordanian instead of complying detonated the suicide device he was wearing.

The explosion, Stratfors said killed the bomber, three security contractors, four CIA officers and the Jordanian intelligence official who was his handler. But the vehicle shielded other CIA officers at the scene from the blast. The CIA officers killed included the chief of base at Khost and an analyst, who was the agency’s foremost expert on al-Qaeda.

“The U.S. cannot hope to reach a satisfactory solution in Afghanistan unless it can win the intelligence war. But the damage done to CIA in this attack cannot be overestimated. At least one of the agency’s top analysts was killed. In an intelligence war, this is equivalent to a sinking of an aircraft carrier in a naval war,” Stratfors said.

Here is an excerpt from a full speech given by Gen. Wes Clark (ret.) in which he lays out how the Project for a New American Century took over U.S. foreign policy starting with Bush, Sr.’s presidency into today.

by Chuck Baldwin

Now it’s Barack Obama’s war. After campaigning against “George Bush’s War” in the Middle East, Obama has escalated that war. By transferring thousands of America’s forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, and by sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the liberal Democrat has demonstrated that his administration is not so different from that of his “conservative” Republican predecessor.

While I was crisscrossing America during the campaign season last year, I repeatedly predicted that no matter who won the White House, John McCain or Barack Obama, neither would end the war in the Middle East. Many Democrats tried to argue with me, saying they knew Obama would end the war. Now they know I told the truth.

During his speech at West Point in which he announced the war’s escalation, he said, “[T]he Taliban [is] a ruthless, repressive and radical movement.” What he (or John McCain or George W. Bush) never bothers to tell you is that this is the same Taliban that the US government SUPPORTED, back when it was fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Obama also said, “We are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.” That is a lie! US forces will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama has no more intention of bringing all US troops out of Iraq than he does bringing them home from Afghanistan. Beyond that, there are more private contractors (read “mercenaries”) operating in Iraq than US troops. And this will likely be the case in Afghanistan, as well.

But not only did Obama escalate the war in Afghanistan, he made it clear that he is prepared to extend the war into Pakistan. Obama’s speech was laced with references to Pakistan. Examples:

“Our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Note: the latest reports state that there are no more than 100 al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.)

“We need a strategy that works on both sides of the [Afghanistan-Pakistan] border.”

Obama even intimated that he was prepared to extend the war well beyond Pakistan. He told the West Point cadets, “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends WELL BEYOND Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Emphasis added.)

Just how far beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan Obama intends to extend the war he did not say, but there is no question he is fully prepared to broaden the war even further.

Obama even had the unmitigated gall to criticize the Afghan government for being “hampered by corruption, the drug trade.” Need I remind readers that for all its faults, when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, there was virtually NO DRUG TRADE coming out of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the Taliban destroyed the drug business in Afghanistan. Opium and drug production only returned to Afghanistan after US forces displaced the Taliban. In fact, drug production in Afghanistan takes place right under the noses (no pun intended) and with the passive compliance of US forces.

But there is an even more evil and sinister motive for perpetual war than drug smuggling: perpetual war is a tool of globalists to enslave us!

Under the rubric of the “war on terror,” Big Government elitists are able to dismantle the constitutional safeguards of our freedom. Without 9/11 and the “war on terror” there would be no Patriot Act, for example.

Remember, the Patriot Act was first proposed during the Clinton administration, but a recalcitrant Republican Congress refused to approve it. But with a Republican in the White House (G.W. Bush), those same Republicans easily passed the Patriot Act into law. And to show you how this partisanship stuff works, those same Democrats who tried to pass the Patriot Act in the 90s (called by a different name, of course), voted AGAINST the Patriot Act when proposed by Republicans in the early 2000s. And since we’re on the Patriot Act, don’t hold your breath waiting for a Democratic Congress or the Democrat Barack Obama to expunge it.

Now think it through: first, the Democrats tried to pass the Patriot Act (under a different name) and Republicans opposed it. Next, Republicans (who once opposed it) passed the Patriot Act and Democrats (who once proposed it) opposed it. Now, both Democrats and Republicans (who have both opposed and proposed it) accept and embrace the Patriot Act. And with all that political posturing and grandstanding aside, the Patriot Act is only law today because WE ARE AT WAR.

Without war, we would not have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – which cannot even keep uninvited people out of the White House – the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and thousands of laws and regulations that trample constitutionally protected liberties.

In the name of “War,” our government can record our phone calls, read our emails, monitor our financial transactions and movements, and even place an Army combat division (USNORTHCOM) on American soil to WATCH – OR EVEN FIGHT AGAINST – US! And some of you don’t even give it a second thought. Why? WE ARE AT WAR!

I know! I know! Obama promises to “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the war effort, send more than 50,000 troops plus thousands of independent contractors, and ship millions of tons of equipment half way around the world, and then turn around and bring them all back home IN EIGHTEEN MONTHS? I might have been born in the morning, but it was not yesterday morning!

Of course, that brings up another purpose globalists have in keeping us at war: the financial cost of waging war keeps the country in debt and keeps the Fed’s printing presses running.

Come on, folks, face it: there are many people who get “filthy, stinking” rich during times of war. If you have not read USMC Brigadier General Smedley Butler’s book, War is a Racket, you need to get it.

After winning the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the French Order of the Black Star and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor, Butler said (as quoted in Common Sense magazine), “I spent 33 years and four months in active service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, do you really think things have gotten any better since General Butler wrote those words?

All in all, perpetual war serves two great interests: it helps the Machiavellians among us strip us of our liberties, and it helps the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars. For these reasons, Barack Obama will do nothing to end the war in the Middle East. If anything, he will expand the war beyond Afghanistan, as he plainly suggested in his speech at West Point.

Once again, unless Americans recognize that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are persistent in serving the financial interests of internationalists (not to mention their own personal financial interests) and are more than eager to trample constitutional liberties in the process, nothing will change in our country – except that our liberties and way of life will continue to evaporate.

And as I’ve said before, I am absolutely convinced that the only way the evil machinations of the globalists now running things in DC can be thwarted is by State governments drawing a firm and determined line in the sand in defense of their liberties. And they need to start drawing that line NOW!

In the meantime, the Bush-Obama war (it was never America’s war, as it was never constitutionally declared by the people’s representatives) drags on and on and on.

by Mike Whitney

Today, we Afghans remain trapped between two enemies: the Taliban on one side and US/NATO forces and their warlord hirelings on the other.” Malalai Joya, “A Woman Among the Warlords” Scribner Publishing, New York

	Obama’s speech at West Point.

The Bush administration never had any intention of liberating Afghanistan or establishing democracy. The real aim was to remove the politically-intractable Taliban and replace them with a puppet regime run by a former-CIA asset. The rest of Afghanistan would be parceled-off to the warlords who assisted in the invasion and who had agreed to do much of the United States dirty-work on the ground. In the eight years of military occupation which followed, that basic strategy has never changed. The U.S. is just as committed now as it was at the war’s inception to establish a beachhead in Central Asia to oversee the growth of China, to execute disruptive/covert operations against Russia, to control vital pipeline routes from the Caspian Basin, and to maintain a heavy military presence in the most critical geopolitical area in the world today.

The objectives were briefly stated in a recent counterpunch article by Tariq Ali:

“It’s now obvious to everyone that this is not a ‘good’ war designed to eliminate the opium trade, discrimination against women and everything bad – apart from poverty, of course. So what is Nato doing in Afghanistan? Has this become a war to save Nato as an institution? Or is it more strategic, as was suggested in the spring 2005 issue of Nato Review:

The centre of gravity of power on this planet is moving inexorably eastward … The Asia-Pacific region brings much that is dynamic and positive to this world, but as yet the rapid change therein is neither stable nor embedded in stable institutions. Until this is achieved, it is the strategic responsibility of Europeans and North Americans, and the institutions they have built, to lead the way … security effectiveness in such a world is impossible without both legitimacy and capability.” (”Short Cuts in Afghanistan”, Tariq Ali, counterpunch)

President Barak Obama’s speech at West Point was merely a reiteration of US original commitment to strengthen the loose confederation of warlords–many of who are either in the Afghan Parliament or hold high political office–to pacify nationalist elements, and to expand the war into Pakistan. Obama is just a cog in a much larger imperial wheel which moves forward with or without his impressive oratory skills. So far, he has been much more successful in concealing the real motives behind military escalation than his predecessor George W. Bush. It’s doubtful that Obama could stop current operations even if he wanted to, and there is no evidence that he wants to.

The Pentagon has settled on a new counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN) which it intends to implement in Afghanistan. The program will integrate psyops, special forces, NGOs, psychologists, media, anthropologists, humanitarian agencies, public relations, reconstruction, and conventional forces to rout the Taliban, assert control over the South and the tribal areas, and to quash any indigenous resistance. Clandestine activity and unmanned drone attacks will increase, while a “civilian surge” will be launched to try to win hearts and minds in the densely populated areas. Militarily, the goal is to pit one ethnicity against the other, to incite civil war, and to split the country in smaller units that can be controlled by warlords working with Washington. Where agricultural specialists, educators, engineers, lawyers, relief agencies and NGOs can be used, they will be. Where results depend on the application of extreme violence; it will also be…unsparingly. This is the plan going forward, a plan designed for conquest, subjugation and resource-stripping. Here is an excerpt from Zoltan Grossman’s article in counterpunch “Afghanistan: The Roach Motel of Empires” which details the balkenization strategy:

“We are arming and financing the same vicious men (the Northern Alliance) who brought fundamentalism to Kabul in the first place….Like the Soviets, the Americans do not understand that the insurgency is driven not only by Islamist fundamentalism, but also by ethnic nationalism. In the case of the Taliban, they are representing the grievances of the Pashtuns who have seen the artificial colonial “Durand Line” divide their homeland between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The best way to defuse the Taliban is to recognize the legitimacy of this historical grievance, and incorporate Pashtun civil society into both governments.

But instead of unifying the different ethnic regions of Afghanistan, the NATO occupation seems headed more toward a de facto partition of these regions. The foreign policy team that President Obama has assembled includes some of the same figures who advocated the ethnic-sectarian partition of Yugoslavia and Iraq. Obama’s Special Envoy to Af-Pak, Richard Holbrooke, authored the agreement that partioned Bosnia into Serb and Muslim-Croat republics in 1995, in effect rubberstamping the ethnic cleansing that had forcibly removed populations during a three-year civil war. He also turned a blind eye when Serb civilians were expelled from Croatia the same year, and from Kosovo in 1999.

President Karzai recently instituted a series of laws on women in Shia communities, causing an outcry from women’s rights groups. Hardly unnoticed was his application of different legal standards to different sectarian territories—a sign of de facto (informal) partition. Various “peace” proposals have advocated ceding control of some Pashtun provinces to the Taliban. Far from bringing peace, such an ethnic-sectarian partition would exacerbate the violent “cleansing” of mixed territories to drive out those civilians who are not of the dominant group—the process that brought the “peace of the graveyard” to Bosnia, Kosovo, and much of Iraq.” ( Zoltan Grossman, “Afghanistan: The Roach Motel of Empires” counterpunch)

If Grossman is correct, than Obama’s professed commitment to Afghan liberation merely masks a vicious counterinsurgency strategy that will ethnically cleanse areas in the south while driving tens of thousands of innocent people from their homes. This is essentially what took place in Baghdad during the so-called “surge”; over a million Sunnis were forced from the city by death squads and Shia militia under the watchful eye of US troops. US counterinsurgency wunderkind Gen Stanley McChrystal played a pivotal role in pacifying Iraq, which is why he was chosen by Obama to oversee military operations in Afghanistan. Here’s a clip from an article by Ulrich Rippert “Europe backs Afghanistan strategy aimed at “regionalization”’ on the World Socialist Web Site which provides more details on the plan to Balkenize Afghanistan:

“During his inaugural visit to Washington, new German defense secretary, Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg said it was necessary to put aside “the romantic idea of democratization of the whole country along the lines of the western model” and instead “transfer control of individual provinces step by step to the Afghan security forces.”

The new strategy of “regionalization” is aimed at dividing Afghanistan into individual cantons—in a similar manner to what took place in Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia. Up to now the US-NATO occupation supported the government of Hamid Karzai and sold the process to the public as “democratization”. However, occupation forces are moving increasingly to hand over power directly to regional warlords and their militias—on the assumption that such regional forces will follow the orders of their imperial masters. As soon as there is no more danger in a specific province, Guttenberg declared, then the international troops should be withdrawn from that area.” (Ulrich Rippert “Europe backs Afghanistan strategy aimed at “regionalization”’, World Socialist Web Site)

Obama’s escalation is not aimed at strengthening democracy, liberating women or bringing an end to the brutal, misogynist rule of religious fanatics. It is pure, unalloyed imperial politics, the rearranging of the map and its people to serve Washington’s interests. As journalist Alex Lantier notes on the World Socialist Web Site, the plan does not end with Afghanistan, but stretches across the globe. The hard-right policymakers behind Obama, still have not abandoned their dream of global rule. Here’s an excerpt:

“As Obama indicated elsewhere in his speech, this escalation is one step in plans for even broader wars. “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly,” he said, “and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Mentioning Somalia and Yemen as potential targets, he added, “our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.”

The inclusion of this passage made clear that Obama was basing his Afghan policy on a report issued last month by Anthony Cordesman of the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Cordesman wrote: “The President must be frank about the fact that any form of victory in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be part of a much wider and longer struggle. He must make it clear that the ideological, demographic, governance, economic, and other pressures that divide the Islamic world mean the world will face threats in many other nations that will endure indefinitely into the future. He should mention the risks in Yemen and Somalia, make it clear that the Iraq war is not over, and warn that we will still face both a domestic threat and a combination of insurgency and terrorism that will continue to extend from Morocco to the Philippines, and from Central Asia deep into Africa, regardless of how well we do in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

He added: “…the present level of US, allied, Afghan and Pakistani casualties will almost certainly double and probably more than triple before something approaching victory is won.” (Alex Lantier “Obama’s speech on Afghanistan: A compendium of lies” World Socialist web Site)

In the years ahead, we can expect to see relief and reconstruction efforts stepped up to provide security in the heavily-populated areas while the war in the south is expanded and intensified. Tajiks and Uzbeks, in the Afghan military will be enlisted to fight or expel their Pashtun countrymen, while warlords, druglords and human rights abusers are handed over large swathes of the countryside. 30,000 more troops is not enough to lock-down all of Afghanistan, but it may be enough to force hundreds of thousands of people into regional bantustans where they can be controlled by bloodthirsty chieftains, the very same men who leveled Kabul on April 28, 1992, killing 80,000 Afghan civilians. This is Obama’s plan for Afghanistan, a carbon-copy of George Bush’s.