Jews in Britain.

...Talking of corruption, the corruption of the British political system by Israel is investigated by British television.

The Jewish writer below takes a radicalized narrative approach to this extremely important problem, and tells it like it really is. Like me he discards polite words to describe what is an extremely serious situations. It is unpretentious. I do not come across this form of writing too often, so I have posted his article.

The problem for Britain ultimately relates to matters of national security, declarations of war, troop engagements, terrorism.........and much much more, and how they are conducted in the UK, so this topic is very important, very fundamental as to what type of British society will evolve into in the near future....more so if Britain were to become a total police state, because it serves Israel's underlying overall interests, based on actions of Israel within Britain covert or otherwise, with their British gentile underling lieutenants.

The Iraqi invasion of 2003 was done at Israel's behest; 9/11 was carried by Israel and their American lieutenants; "al-Qaeda" does not exist; 7/7 and all the terrorist acts since 2005 were carried out by Israel's lieutenants in British security.

His flaw is that he thinks Israel and its lobbying is the only and main problem.

He does not suggest extensively how the problem will be dealt with seriously beyond mere rhetoric.

How do you de-invent Zionism? Is Zionism the only problem? How do you deal with an ideology without dealing with the base of its people? How do you clearly with certainty separate the two? Does not the Jew prize secrecy, and surreptitious plotting?

As with America, the problem is not Israel ONLY. The problem lies with the Jews who live in those countries who actively work for Israel. In America's case the 8/9 million Jews, and more dangerously, because you do not know they are Jews, so you cannot connect the government policies to their tribal links, crypto-Jews who live in that great country, organized around 52 Jewish lobby groups, feverishly, without question lobbying for Israel.

Through their total control of the American media; American finance....ALL Federal Reserve Presidents must be Jews, ALL Federal Reserve board members must be Jews {Democracy??? Fair play representation??? "Fuck you goy, you ain't touching our fiat money printing machine"}; and the slow infiltration of American security.............and finally American politics, providing Presidents like Teddy Roosvelt, FD Roosevelt, Harry Soloman Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ALL crypto -Jews.....

In Britain officially there are 350,000 Jews. Unofficially the true figure is more likely to be nearer 1,000,000 . Because of Jewish social and business requirements, and the need to overcome identity and ethnic bias issues, more often than not they cover their real identity even in this modern day and age, and don't readily divulge it, beyond their intimate circle, except where they are present in significant numbers, and feel confident to unmask themselves....in Israel, NY......or they are ultra-religiously inclined like Hassidic Jews etc.

They were expelled from England around 1300, allegedly because they were carrying out blood sacrfices on gentile children, and their usury practices had become unbearable. They use the blood of the sacrificed children to make special religious bread, which they subsequently eat at special religious ocassions.

The Jewish religion is a despicable North African Bongo Bongo religion, but unfortunately, unlike the teachings of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha........translated into ALL languages with very easy access, so that everybody can access the good wholesome message of good thoughts, good words and good deeds.........I challenge anybody to find authentic translated copies of the Torah/Talmud in English. For good reason you will not find copies readily available, because with Judaism we are talking about a truly evil religion, a dangerous religion, a profoundly anti-human religion.

After the English Civil war they are were unofficially allowed back into England by Oliver Cromwell. The Jews in Holland had funded his war machine. The Jew likes war........because it means goy blood sacrifice, and war can be very profitable. From their base in London they gradually expanded their influence in the country, eventually establishing the Bank of England (1694), and the funding of the East India Company (1708).

Continuous war by Britain in the 18th century, Jew funded empire, Master of the Opium trade...........then the mother of all evil Jews the Rothschild enter Britain from Germany in 1798.........Napoleonic wars........Rothschild dominate 19th century......protocols.....Jews in Britain, France, USA, Germany institute WW I....WWII......(work in progress)

So I would say the problem is not merely Zionism, or even Israel..........we do not need to be strategic experts to identify the evil nature of Israel. But the main problem is Jews who reside in Gentile countries which are powerful and significant in the world , like the USA, UK etc which have consequencies for the world, subequently.

_____________________________________ _

Britain must de-Zionise Itself Immediately

By Gilad Atzmon

November 17, 2009 "
Information Clearing House" -- On Monday the British TV broadcaster, Channel 4 screened Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, a devastating expose of the Jewish lobby in the UK*. ‘We couldn’t find a conspiracy’ affirmed Peter Oborne the Daily Mail’s political commentator behind the film. He was right. After running the show for so many years, the Jewish lobby’s purchasing of British politicians and media presence is in the open.

The Guardian reported today that two years ago a controversial study by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy “but Britain's pro-Israel organisations have been subjected to far too less scrutiny.” This is indeed the case, and as Oborne disclosed, both British politicians and Zionist pressure groups enjoy it to the max.

In the film Sir Richard Dalton, a former ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached." I would suggest that ‘strings attached’ is a very gentle way of putting it. ‘Chained to submission’ would be far closer to the truth.

Seemingly a British, consensus case against Zionism and Zionist infiltration is piling up.

The Jewish community is not happy at all. After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they are used to being untouchable.

Labor MP Denis MacShane, who operates as the House of Common’s UK equivalent of the ‘anti defamation league’ told the Jerusalem Post "if there is a Jewish /Israel lobby here, it is not very effective, as Israel is almost treated as a pariah state in the media and has few friends in politics."

MacShane may be right; one cannot buy friendship with money. But according to Monday’s broadcast one can certainly buy British politician’s subservience for just a few shekels. According to the Guardian 50% of the Shadow Cabinet are now ‘friends of Israel’. In that context one common saying comes to mind. “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are”

I would assume that if there was any public respect left for the British Parliament, British political parties and the BBC, it should be gone by now. Just a few months ago Brits were devastated to find out about their MPs' personal expenses bills. Yesterday they learned about their leading politician’s affiliation with the darkest possible regime and ideology around. They also learned that their national broadcast corporation is influenced by Zionists pressure groups run from Jerusalem.

Mark Gardner from the Zionist ‘Community Security Trust’ is not happy either. He complained that Dispatches producers behaved as if they were investigating a “criminal gang rather than various Jewish community-linked organizations,"

Gardner is also correct. It is indeed tragic to admit that the Jewish lobby is far more worrying than a criminal gang. It is there to serve a murderous state with a devastating record of crimes against humanity. Thanks to the Jewish lobby, we are all complicit in the Zionist crime. Not only are those lobbyists heavily corrupted and removed from any ethical value system, they also corrupt everything they touch. They obviously contaminate every politician who is happy to take their shekels. Consequently they incriminate us all as a society.

Watching Cannel 4’s Dispatches yesterday I wondered to myself whether this is the ‘democracy’ some British politicians, such as David Miliband insist on spreading around. I also wonder whether this is the governing model that Jewish Chronicle writer Nick Cohen and the Israeli Hasbara committee author David Aaronovitch were trying to promote when they were supporting the invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

Political commentator Peter Oborne indeed fulfilled his promise. He told us almost everything we want to know about the lobby, “who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.”

However, there is a single observation that must be added. People out there must never forget that Britain was taken into a war that cost more than a million Iraqi lives and at the time Lord Levy was the Number 1 Labour fund-raiser. Putting the two together: an illegal war that only serves Israeli interests and Sir Richard Dalton’s observation that Zionist ‘contribution’ comes with ‘strings attached’, leaves a very bitter taste. Due to its heavily corrupted politicians, Britain is now willingly serving the darkest possible racist national ideology and supporting a criminal terrorist state.

British politicians and media are caught in bed with too many Zionist wolfs. In order to reclaim sovereignty and dignity, Britain must de-Zionise itself immediately.

Corruption is the number one enemy of economic development.

There is a simple correlation between economic welfare, and corruption; the more of the later, the less of the former........simple.

Corruption distorts, and diverts a nations effort to development.

This simple fact is verified by extensive studies.

The sources of corruption vary, but usually the source of the problem begins with the GOVERNMENT of the country in the broadest sense at the apex of power and patronage, which views corruption some how as business as usual, or the "local way of doing business".


Afghanistan, Iraq Near Bottom of Corruption Index

by Jim Lobe, November 18, 2009at Antiwar.com

Despite billions of dollars spent by the U.S. and other countries to improve governance in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries remain among the world’s most corrupt nations, according to the latest edition of Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).

Of the 180 countries covered by the 2009 CPI, Iraq ranks 176 and Afghanistan 179, according to the CPI, which was released by the Berlin-based group Tuesday.

Only Somalia, which has not had a functioning government capable of controlling a major portion of its territory since 1991, ranked lower than Afghanistan, where the administration of President Barack Obama is currently considering adding as many as 44,000 more U.S. troops to the nearly 68,000 currently deployed there.

The CPI, which represents a composite of 13 international corruption polls and surveys, also included Uzbekistan, Chad, Sudan, and Myanmar at the bottom of its list.

At the other end of the spectrum, the CPI ranked New Zealand at the top of the survey. It was followed by Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, and Iceland in that order.

The CPI, which has been issued annually by TI since 1995, has become increasingly important for both companies that are seeking investment opportunities beyond their borders and countries that are competing for that investment.

It relies mainly on the opinions of country experts, risk analysts, and business leaders, both residents and non-residents, whose views are compiled by a total of 10 institutions, among them the World Bank, the African and Asian Development Banks, Economist Intelligence Unit, and the Bertelsmann Foundation.

The surveys used in the CPI ask questions that relate to the misuse of public power for private benefit, including the prevalence of such practices as bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, and embezzlement of public funds.

Each country is ranked on a scale of zero to 10, with 10 as the least corrupt. Somalia, the index’s most corrupt country, received a score of 1.1, while New Zealand at the other end of the scale scored 9.4.

Only 49 of the 180 countries scored a 5.0 or higher. The survey’s mean score was 3.3.

In releasing this year’s index, TI stressed the worst-performing countries appeared to share a history of long-standing conflict, with disastrous results on their governance. "The international community must find efficient ways to help war-torn countries to develop and sustain their own institutions," said TI’s chair, Huguette Labelle.

Of the Group of Seven (G7) major Western industrialized countries, Canada gained the highest score at 8.7, followed by Germany (8.0, 14th ranking), Japan and Britain (7.7 tied for 17th), the United States (7.5, 19th), France (6.9, 24th), and Italy (4.3, 63rd) – just below Cuba and Turkey.

Of the other 12 country members of the Group of 20 (G-20), Australia scored highest (8.7, 8th along with Canada), followed by South Korea (5.5, 39th), South Africa (4.7, 55th), Turkey (4.4, 61st), Saudi Arabia (4.3, 63rd), Brazil (3.7, 75th), China (3.6, 79th), India (3.4, 84th), Mexico (3.3, 89th), Argentina (2.9, 106th), Indonesia (2.8, 111th), and Russia (2.2, 146th).

In Latin America, Chile and Uruguay tied for the highest score (6.7), which put them in 25th place overall. They were followed by Costa Rica in 43rd place, Cuba (61st), and Brazil, Colombia, and Peru tied in 75th place with a score of 3.7.

Haiti was perceived as the most corrupt country in the hemisphere, ranking 168th and gaining a score of 1.8. Venezuela was perceived as the next most corrupt with a rank of 162 and a score of 1.9. Other Latin American countries that received rankings of 120 or higher included Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Paraguay in ascending order.

In sub-Saharan Africa, Botswana topped the list for the least corrupt country with an overall ranking of 37 and a score of 5.6. Only two other countries in the region – Mauritius and Cape Verde – earned scores greater than 5.0. Three more countries – the Seychelles, South Africa, and Namibia – scored over 4.0, while Ghana, Burkina Faso, and Swaziland received scores of 3.6 or higher.

In addition to Sudan and Somalia, the worst-ranked African countries included the Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo-Brazzaville, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea and Chad, in descending order. All in this group scored less than 2.0 on the CPI scale.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Qatar (22) and the United Arab Emirates (30) improved their scores over previous years, rising to 7.0 and 6.5, respectively. They were followed by Israel (32, 6.1), Oman (39, 5.5), Bahrain (46, 5.1), and Jordan (49, 5.0).

Worst-perceived countries in the region aside from Iraq included Iran (168, 1.8), Yemen (154, 2.1), and Lebanon and Libya (130, 2.5).

Aside from Afghanistan and Myanmar, the Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Philippines (139) scored 2.4, followed by Nepal, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, and Laos.

In the region running from the Balkans to the former Soviet states of Central Asia, Turkey earned the highest score at 4.4, followed by Croatia and Georgia (4.1). At 174, Uzbekistan earned the lowest score of 1.7, behind Russia and Ukraine (2.2), Tajikistan (2.0), Kyrgyzstan (1.9), and Turkmenistan (1.8).

Kazakhstan, which had been rated close to the bottom in previous years, improved its score to 2.7 due mainly to efforts at improving conditions for foreign investment in the run-up to its chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation, according to TI.

(Inter Press Service)


Do we need counter-insurgency in Afghanistan?


Getting Out With Grace.

By William Pfaff at Antiwar.com

There are two tried and disproved methods for dealing with insurrection in a non-Western country. The third and reliable method is not to go there in the first place. The fourth is get out with such grace as is possible, as rapidly as possible. President Barack Obama may be looking at the last option, hitherto not on the policy menu.

(Declare ALL American objectives achieved........the elimination of "al-Qaeda" from Afghanistan, and the substantial degrading of the once mighty 40--50,000 Taliban militia. Politicians of all shades should be able to create the relevant narrative/hyperbole for public consumption......that is one of the usefulness's of having politicians.

Second negotiate with the Taliban via the Pakistan military, the real power brokers in all this. The Taliban have offered their own peace terms, so lets explore their proposal for its usefulness.

Establish a national unity government in Kabul there after, which includes all the political fractions, including the Taliban {defacto Pakistan military}, with the tacit understanding by all Afghan fractions that America will leave by 2011, once a national unity government is established. The fact that all parties in Afghanistan know that America will leave, will allow all the interested parties to concentrate their minds in establishing some sort of government.

It then becomes wholly their responsibility, and ...burden....and struggle.

Whether such a government actually survives after America leaves, is not America's problem, but at least nobody will be able to claim in Afghanistan that it was an unpopular imposed foreign American puppet government.

.....................AND most important, ordinary Afghans will no longer have a disparate reason to join the dreaded Taliban. There after support for the Taliban should wane and their very real ability to control and take over the country. Then America can seek to find a genuine partner for regional influence in Afghanistan, but not based on their criminal record.

America will no longer need to work with criminals in Afghanistan for the drugs profits to flow.

The criminals in the Pentagon/London who annually make the $50--$80 billion Afghan narco profit can use that time {2009---2011} to fix their local contacts in Afghanistan, and the international shipment routes outside of Afghanistan into North America, Europe and Russia. This is what happened with the Opium from South East Asia after the Vietnam war 1963--1973.

The Vietnam war was about controlling the drugs in South East Asia, and not about winning against the Vietcong....Air America (1990) ....the problem looked at as a light hearten comical satire..American Gangster (2007)...the same problem looked at more seriously, but portrayed substantively as an African-American problem. African Americans didn't run the American military in the 1960's, and the international banks in Wall Street and London who launder the narco profits

But I see some have fixed the portrayal of this $600 billion industry as being run by blacks and Latino's. Such a huge industry of the source, international supply, and intricate laundering could not possibly be organized so well by blacks, or even Latinos....this is a business run by International banker Jews based in London, and NY and their gentile lieutenants, in such places as American/British security who for the sake of money forget their national loyalties. It has been going on since the good old days of the East India company (Jew run company} over 200 years back.

As suggested above in Afghanistan, this way the criminals in the Pentagon/London will not lose out on the narco profits; their business can continue, without the high profile inquisitive media attention of "why is our boys fighting a wholly none war?".

Once America leaves, the locals can be encouraged to protect the pipelines from Central Asia, where they are seen as a boon for their local economy, and not as a target to destroy. It does not make sense for Corporate America to spend $1 million per soldier per year to protect a mettle pipe running through Afghanistan carrying what? $5 billion worth of gas and oil annually? Educate the locals to do it.

America is a big country. America is the richest country in the world. America is the most powerful country in the world. Americans are optimists, not manic depressive pessimists like the Israelis, who see enemies every where. Civilization, human civilization would end if Americans generally became like the Israelis, covert attempts, subliminal attempts through the MSM not withstanding.

With such abundance of so much, perhaps there can be some magnanimity from America to say finally in relation to Afghanistan, "OK we have done our part, we have achieved our objectives, and now its your responsibility to truly run your own affairs....in this we will help you with good intentions, but no longer as an occupier."

This surely is not too much to ask??)

The first method is treat the insurrection as a conventional military challenge. Attack en masse to destroy the uprising and its infrastructure, employ shock-and-awe tactics, search for and destroy the rebels’ sources of supply, even when this means invading neighboring countries. Make the enemy stand up and fight the way Americans fight wars. Rely on mass, overwhelming logistical superiority, and the huge American technological advantage.

This was Gen. William Westmoreland’s strategy at the start of the Vietnamese war. Outkill the enemy. Make body counts the measure of success. By 1969, this program had failed and Westmoreland had been relieved.

In Iraq, in 2003, the United States again went in with fast, high-powered and overwhelming armed force, blasting to shreds whatever was in its way. It was a great success in getting to Baghdad. But the enemy had not been interested in fighting. Several of the most important Iraqi generals had secretly been bought off (through the head of Saddam's intelligence service, who was working for America!!!!......and the same formula being applied to Pakistan, NOW, Kiani and Suja Pasha). The ordinary soldier had no enthusiasm in fighting for Saddam Hussein, nor had the mid-level officers.

(Saddam's Iraq by 2003 was a spent force, which could have just as easily imploded had the Americans not invaded the country. The 400,000 Iraqi military was a sham force on paper, lacking equipment and regular pay, through the sanctions and misrule of Saddam....therefore the invasion of Iraq was not necessary from America's REAL security perspective {never mind yellow cakes from Niger; Saddam WMD's; Saddam/al-Qaeda.....all verifiable as false through the American intelligence high echelon contacts within Iraqi security}, ....but Israel wanted an invasion, the destruction of the country into 3 ethnic parts, blood letting, where 1.3 million Iraqis have died since, with 4.5 million refugees, and Bush II obliged at a cost to America of a $trillion or 2 eventually, and the death of 20,000 servicemen unofficially and 80,000 overall casualties, unofficially)

The Iraq army expected to be taken over by the conquerors and put to work cleaning up and re-establishing order in the country. Instead the soldiers were told to go home: that they were untrustworthy Baathists — nationalists, socialists and pan-Arabists — members of Saddam Hussein’s old party. So they went home and found other things to do, such as taking part in an insurrection to drive the occupiers out, not without success.

The Americans have started to leave Iraq, having gained nothing except to make Iran the regional great power, and to create hostility for American oil companies who wanted but are not getting oilfield development contracts.

(Hopefully without any prior overt criminal baggage, the vast majority of Ba'athist, will be allowed to run for public office in Iraq...very soon, as in NOW; they are the sorely needed technocrats who can make Iraq work...they have the administrative skills, which the religious parties funded by Iran do not...and can be allies of America, why not? ...Former Nazis in Germany...former militarists in post war Japan.....both groups were critical to the rebuilding of those two countries, and the same rule applies to Iraq now)

Iraq is still a very unsettled country, with a difficult national election scheduled at the beginning of the new year.(Get all the Israeli military advisers out of the country) American troops are supposed to leave the country in two years, but doubt about that remains. Mideastern, Turkish, European, Russian and Far Eastern companies are highly actively looking for business there. (The U.S. State Department advises American businessmen against traveling to Iraq; it’s too dangerous.)

A second classic strategic theory for defeating insurrections is "clear and hold." This is very much in fashion in Washington now thanks to its advocacy by Gen. David H. Petraeus at Central Command and Stanley A. McChrystal in Afghanistan, and also in two recent books, one by Lewis Sorley, the other by David Kilcullen, both arguing that the Vietnam War was actually won by such a strategy — but too late for the fickle American press, public opinion and Congress to recognize the victory.

(victory around the corner, after 10 years of fighting, sounds familiar)

Clear and hold means ejecting guerrillas from an area and then protecting it from their return. This began in postwar Malaya (as it was then) in 1948, when an insurrection from inside the Chinese minority population caused much of that population to be confined in guarded villages, leaving British troops free to deal with the Chinese who escaped this treatment. Eventually a political solution was found.

(No two insurgency campaign scenarios are alike...so does not make sense to copy one successful counter-insurgency campaign onto another different culture/country/different history/different people...even though they may look similar.

The Chinese were brought into Malaysia by the British imperialists to work as coolies........when an alien is brought to a strange new environment, in theory they tend to be subordinate, and very obedient...the basic theory of European colonial plantation labor, recruited not from the locals, but as imported bonded labor. Thus Africans used in the America's instead of the local American Indians. So a subject race, who are not traditional locals, not self confident in their new environment, where they have not lived for centuries.

Also the Chinese population in Malaysia were a minority of about 30%......on the fringes of a society. Not the dominant majority. We are talking about 3.6 million ethnic Chinese in Malaysia in 1948???? Not a huge number. Few if any of the Chinese Malay communists had military back grounds, extensive training, or access to arms, save for those captured from the surrendering Japanese and stored. The Malay Chinese had no obvious supply routes......these weaknesses of the Malay Chinese Communists, despite their euphoria and encouragement from Mao's China, the British colonials, with their experience of the area for over 100 years were able to contain, without using Soviet/Afghanistan style ham fisted brutality.

In Vietnam you had in the 1960's 40 million Vietnamese????..one ethnic group, with a sense of history; a people who had lived in the area for millennium upon millenarian.....with supply routes via Communist China, and North Vietnam's ports etc. Where perhaps, elements of the criminal American elite were more interested in other pursuits like securing the opium supply routes to America, and else where, rather than focusing on an out right military victory over the Communists of Vietnam. Many Jews consider Communism as an extension of their Talmud religion.............from 1940--1962, the USA covertly armed, trained, and supplied with arms the Communist North Vietcong.

The "Victory" in Vietnam was the perceived belief that Communism had been prevented from spreading to the whole of South East Asia......but overall America's approach was ham fisted, clumsy and destructive, propping up criminals in Saigon...4 million Vietnamese dead, and a credible case for war crimes at the Hague.

The problem with America in the Third World scenario is that because of the inherent racist background and beliefs of certain government officers, existing in a specific set institutional climate, despite all the eloquent sugary rhetoric, they have always maintained that America's SOB in the Third Third scene should always be recruited from the lowest common denominator of any given society; societies fringe dregs and marginal characters like psycho fagot Gaddafi of Libya trained in America/UK, serving in Libyan military intelligence initially, until a "coup" was staged in 1969, and he was anointed by America as the leader of the country, with armies of Green Berets propping up his nasty, brutal, "Socialist" regime, sponsoring terrorism/insurgency from around the world for the last 40 uninterrupted years.

In Vietnam, where the U.S. copied the method, these villages were called Strategic Hamlets and were employed in conjunction with the Phoenix program to "clear" areas of enemy or unreliable elements, and defend against the return of the Viet Cong. The Sorley and Kilcullen books notwithstanding, the Communists won that war, the American part of it having lasted from 1963 to 1973.

In the Afghanistan case, Gen. McChrystal has suggested that his war, if fought on his terms (with troop reinforcements rising to a total of over 100,000 men at least), would take between 10 and 50 years to succeed.

(There are now approaching 70,000 American troops {November 2009}...Obama has sent 20,000 already this year, and another 13,000 under a stealth program?????????.....75,000 private contractors....40,000 NATO allies; 260,000 ANA projected, with 100,000 Afghan police paramilitary projected for 2012????; 50,000 warlord militia.........AND MacCrystal wants 40,000---80,000 more on top of all that, with more commitments from NATO...10,000---20,000 more= Grand total lets see......655,000 Occupation and Afghan forces, against.........10,000 regular Taliban fighters depending on the season.......66 government forces for every Taliban, though of course the Taliban numbers may increase, with greater occupation activity.

Such a force cannot be cohesive, and really America does not have a real enemy to fight in Afghanistan, but useful if you want to start a war with Pakistan and further destabilize that sorry country.....but, but ,but as with Saddam's Iraq what would the point of that be if the top echelon of the Pakistan military is in your pay already, and they obey your orders.....in the Iraq sense?)

Afghanistan consists of 652,230 square kilometers (251,827 square miles), many of them more or less vertically inclined, populated by an estimated 28.4 million people. Iraq has an estimated population of 28.9 million people and 438,317 square kilometers (169,235 sq. miles), much of them flat. The estimates of how many civilians died in Iraq range around the figure of 100,000, with some — the Johns Hopkins-Lancet study — much higher.

(Pashtun Afghanistan:

Pashtun's are the dominant group in Afghanistan.....they have dominated Afghanistan for the last 1000 years. They constitute between 45--50 % of the overall population of Afghanistan concentrated in the East and South East. Including the Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran still. {2 million + 2 million} The Taliban is a wholly Pashtun movement.

So why do Pashtun's exclusively join the Taliban?

The Pashtuns first came to Afghanistan/Ariana about 2200--2500 years ago from what is now Kazakhstan {Siberia, Central Asia, Mongolia, Sinkiang were once occupied by Iranian people}......the harsh climate, and often prolonged seasons of poor weather drove these nomadic tribes into more green areas, South towards India, as one example; they went into Iran, Eastern Turkey, and also towards Eastern Europe....The Pashtuns lived in Afghanistan adopting the local religion whether Hinduism or Buddhism. About 1000 years ago they gradually converted to Islam.

They played a prominent role in South Asian history, providing Kings, soldiers, administrators, and philosophers.

More recently, as a people and race they have been restricted to Afghanistan, and now under foreign occupation they find themselves as the main victimized group within Afghanistan, and Pakistan. There are 42 million of them in that area, with 6/7 million of military age....and unemployment in Afghanistan around 40%. Maintaining a low intensity guerrilla war will not be that difficult for them, since they have good supply routes from Pakistan, from the 26 million Pashtuns who reside in Pakistan, and who share the aspirations and worries of their Afghan kin across the "border"...and are themselves subjected to military operations from the Pakistan military.

America is big enough to accommodate the Pashtuns of Afghanistan's aspirations...indeed the Pashtuns can become good allies of America if the right inducements are made to the people. Where America ditches the mafia/narco barons that certain Americans are soooo comfy with, then for this small price, Pashtun Afghanistan can become a good reliable ally of America that is no longer a source of international problems which affect America.

The Taliban is not an international jehadi organization with global pretensions which threatens America, but an ETHNIC movement which through engagement and discourse begun at varying levels by Karzai before the elections, the British and the Pakistan military, can bear fruit for America in Afghanistan......certainly America should not expend unnecessary energy fighting them, it serves no purpose....it proves nothing except the sheer futility and waste of war, and a diversion of vital resources away from what America should be expending its true energy in, healthcare, education, social welfare, creating a sound manufacturing base away from the the MIC.

President Obama, who’s been part of videoconferences on Afghan policy prior to his Asia trip this week, ought to have interest in talking again with the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry. A former U.S. military commander there (2005-2007), now retired from the Army, Eikenberry has expressed on paper his reservations about sending any more U.S. combat troops at all to the country. He would cut back to a few thousand more trainers, and wait to see if the Afghans improve in their ability to look after their own country. If not… ?


More on Afghanistan.


Two Cents About COIN

by Ryan McCarl, at Antiwar.com

The war in Afghanistan, according to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recent assessment, is "a situation that defies simple solutions or quick fixes. Success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign." McChrystal and other American leaders calling for a "surge" of additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan to mirror the alleged success of the "surge" in Iraq are voicing their belief that the doctrinal framework for the original surge – COIN, or manpower-intensive counterinsurgency warfare – is a widely-applicable tool in asymmetric warfare that the U.S. ought to employ in Afghanistan.

(Actually General, without over embellishing your position and self importance with regard to the war in Afghanistan, the solutions to the Afghan problem are quite simple.

The Afghans want peace, tranquility and a semblance of a government/governance------if we could just look at the "problem" from that perspective for a short while, after 30 years of war and invasion by RUSSIA, installing their puppet the Communists of Babrak Kamal/Nazibullah, Parcham fraction of 1980--1989{1.5 million dead, 5 million refugees},

The Afghan civil war.....many factions 1989---1996 {100,000 dead} Russian, Indian, Iranian, and Pakistani interference.

PAKISTAN, installing the Taliban puppets, with American backing. Mad regionalised SUNNI Islam faction. 1994--2001{100,000 dead }

....and the current bunch led by America 2001---2009. Wholly corrupt, American SOB/UNICOL faction {100.000 dead since 2001}

....a reasonable Afghan central government in Kabul would under cut the position of the Taliban, and allow a functioning Central Afghan government to emerge, running the whole of the country, and at the same time be strong enough to withstand external interference, especially against Pakistan. This is what Afghanistan needs.

What the Afghans, and the world have had however is an CLEAR disconnect between public rhetoric by especially American public officials in the military, and the reality of the actual situation in Afghanistan.

The Taliban militia of 40,000--50,000 in 2001 were easily defeated by American air power, special forces and the Northern Alliance, with little or no cost to lives.

If you used about a few thousand special forces against 40,000--50,000 Taliban, and defeated them in about a couple of weeks, why then do you need a future projected force of 500,000 Afghan and coalition forces to defeat a much smaller number of Taliban, fighting over a few years presumably, starting from now, after 8 years of occupation and consolidation in Afghanistan?

Whats/where is the rationale and logic of this?

"al-Qaeda" which is an intelligence hoax hollogram of Western/Israeli intelligence, no longer exists in Afghanistan, and admitted as such by the latest intelligence assessments of 2009.

Osama has been dead since December 2001. Osama's codename was "Tim Osman", and he had extensive liaison with his Western intelligence handlers right until his death in 2001. This suggests he was a puppet of Western intelligence. His real organization consisted of no more than a dozen Arab friends and fellow travelers.

NOT 5,000 men from such diverse backgrounds as Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Indonesia.............He would have had to have been a truly remarkable leader to have wielded and led such a desperate, diverse, variegated type of nationals under his sole leadership. As suggested/hinted he clearly did not lead such a group...at best he may have liaised with some of them for HIS WESTERN/ISRAELI intelligence handlers knowingly....each of the nationals in the Afghan foreign jehadi movement had their own leadership, or even not. They did not recognize him as their leader; tortured confessions not withstanding. "al-Qaeda" does not exist, never did.

They did not attack/undertake 9/11 on American soil. Their sole objective if there ever was one was to fight infedals on Muslim soil using conventional weapons in irregular warfare....in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and later Kosovo, with guidance and encouragement from America/Israel as the hidden hand to create an "al-Qaeda" hoax hologram.

The events of 9/11 in America were carried out by remote controlled planes (twin towers case.....remember space orbs by NASA are sent to Mars and back by remote control)..........pre-existing demolition teams in place a few weeks before 9/11 in Trade Center Buildings 1,2 and 7. Finally in the case of the Pentagon attack it could have been either a cruise missiles or a Predator.

These types of highly specialized technology, their theft from the American secret arsenal, their expert handling and final use,the mythical non-existent hologram "al-Qaeda" could not have had access to ALL at the same time, so coincidentally, hitting their targets with such precision..........Arabs are not superhuman, Saudi twenty something youths who are dysfunctional, unremarkable, taking dope, binging on alcohol prior to that sad event could not have had access to such technology, or the capacity to carry out such profound expert action in tandem, without fail, on their very first attempt, on a foreign soil in New York, and its hinterland.

This was the work of Israel and their agents in America, within American security. Their agents in America had the capacity and security clearance to steal these highly specialised equipment, and use them as professional experts who knew how to use them, as experts. Not 20 something Ay-Rabs.

Means, motive, opportunity---strategic objectives:

Summary real intended outcome:

1) 9/11 was primarily a criminal financial act by elements in the USA and Israel, a high percentage of those who were really involved being Jewish.

2) From an Israeli perspective 9/11 would help Israel get closer to America, 'Were in this together'. "Our war is your war"

3) 9/11 would enable the Israel first Bush administration launch a Crusade for Israel and smash countries deemed to be a threat to Israel.-------7 countries in 5 years was the talk in late 2001, at the Pentagon.

4) 9/11 would allow the Israelis to more openly pursue their agenda's without the critical Western media being too scrutinizing. Dealing with the Palestinians more harshly, as they have done so since 2001, and then attacking Lebanon and there after Syria---'A Clean Break' document 1996.

5) 9/11 would allow the Jew greater control over America, by creating a security police state, with them setting and deciding the agenda's in America.

Some perspectives on 9/11

The 5,000 international Jihadi fighters who were falsely identified as "al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan in 2001 are NOW mostly dead, or have returned to their native countries via Iran, or Pakistan/Maldives or Pakistan/Oman.

There are about 10,000 regular "Taliban" fighters fighting in the East and South East of the country, backed by the Pakistan military.......BUT this is not because these people are waging a global jihad, where upon when they finish their task in Afghanistan they are going to head towards America. Hardly; the leadership and the rank and file of the Taliban have local objectives. Indeed many of the rank and file of the Taliban are not true Taliban, but have joined because of some bad experience with the occupation forces, or grievances against the UNICOL puppet, and its security forces....eg Afghan police enter and occupy a village and rape the boys in that area, which enrages the locals into joining the Taliban....a local warlord extorts a % of the annual harvest from local Afghans which makes their lives unbearable, so they join the Taliban to fight the warlord who is allied to the occupation force.........NOTHING TO DO WITH HARMING THE WEST/ATTACKING THE WEST.

The Taliban in turn is CONTROLLED/SUPPLIED by the Pakistani military, period.


Once this true scenario is understood, then American politicians must decide whether they wish to continue fighting an unnecessary war, or they begin to put in place a system that will preserve a realistic civilian Kabul government, which can stand alone and fight and defeat the Taliban eventually.

There are various alternative "real reason" arguments put forward as to why America is in Afghanistan:

1) To protect the pipelines from Central Asia carrying gas and oil----well it doesn't make sense to have a state of the art military machine MERELY guarding pipelines, especially where each of these boys cost $750,000---$1,000,000 each year to maintain in Afghanistan. Much more practical to have the locals, with the added incentives do the protecting.

Now I appreciate many people have subsequently questioned the "intelligence" of the Bush administration, in the full holistic sense of the word......but the passage of time and experience should allow us to adjust how strategies are pursued, and not get into policy ruts. You know Iraq, we invade and own Iraqi oil, the second largest reserves on earth......"Its mine, mine, mine, mine mine.....you hear me...no one else can have it, no one, its mine, mine....free, free, free".....under International law, this is illegal appropriation. An occupying power has certain legal obligations, lest the legal experts at the State Department forget, and one of them is that states clearly that are occupying powers, beyond reasonable requests for reparations, cannot just grab the local resources and do with them as they wish.....like in the good old days of European colonialism........But that was the presumption of the Bush administration, it seemed as they legislated away Iraqi oil rights. So not a stretch to see the rational of the Bush administration over the pipelines/and American military protection for them in the context of Afghanistan as the real reason for the invasion of that country.

2. $50--80 billion annual opium/narcotics profit from Afghanistan:----again as with the above argument, the American military does not have to be in Afghanistan to secure the profits for the criminal few in the Pentagon and their civilian contacts. The main issue for the international narcotics business is who controls the international routes and end sale business in the profitable European, North American and Russian markets. Maybe the narcotics profits from South America is about $200 billion enabled by the American military/security into North America.....and growing every year, but as with the case of South America, and so thus with AFGHANISTAN, American security personnel do not have to be in place there to secure the business for the criminal elites of America/UK.....Small military missions under the guise of fighting left-wing guerrillas in South America and the narcotics trade in those countries is enough. "Its mine, Its mine...its mine...I'm rich, very rich.....soo rich....the eyes light up and flash......pent houses in Manhattan, ........."

Top decisionmakers in the U.S. military, including Gen. McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus, continue to express their faith in the doctrine, which they played major roles in creating. Prominent Republicans in Congress, who almost unanimously support sending more troops to Afghanistan, have endorsed a nation-building strategy that relies heavily on COIN over a counterterrorism strategy that focuses on targeting al-Qaeda and other militants from a distance. Several key figures in the Obama administration also appear to favor that approach.

(Well a counter terrorism campaign is a waste of time if everybody has concluded that "al-Qaeda" is not present in Afghanistan. So from the the Pentagon's point of view a different rational and strategies have to be put forward and that seems to be COIN. There are military men who want their moment of glory....their chance to be the next MacArthur, Patton, and Grant, and be recognised for it......just amazing how General MacCrystal went about "selling" his war....and so it will be difficult to convince them that there is no real enemy to fight in Afghanistan; the politicians ultimately must decide whether America continues with this military charade and fantasy. 9/11 was a sad charade, but must it continue for ever?)

It may be true that, as military expert Stephen Biddle said in recent Congressional testimony, "the U.S. is an unusually experienced counterinsurgent force today," and "the new Army/Marine counterinsurgency doctrine…is the product of a nearly unprecedented degree of internal debate, external vetting, historical analysis, and direct recent combat experience."

(Has America won a real counter-insurgency campaign yet?......Can you be so blatantly in your face brutal to the Afghans re: Karzai, and tolerate his ilk, and their deeds....and think we can "win" in Afghanistan. The Basic premise and pattern of behavior is wrong........if you spend 98% of ALL your expenditure on the military in Afghanistan, can you win a counter-insurgency? To be sure dear fat, nasty friends.....Pashtun dominated, Eastern/South Western Afghanistan is difficult to "reach out" to but what about the rest of the country....the Central Hazara, the Persian East around Herat, The Uzbek North, or the Tajik North East?..........How many fucking schools have you built with our fucking Jew NARCO $.....How many hospitals, roads, bridges, houses, factories, offices,...............farms)

But these very factors that have encouraged so many highly capable U.S. leaders to sign on to "COIN" should cause observers to be wary of the doctrine and the currency it increasingly enjoys in the American political debate. After all, the more enthusiastic we are about the potential of COIN warfare, the more blind we will be to its costs, which are enormous.

(You might just fail, all the Iranians, Chinese or Pakistanis have to do is start supplying light SAMS to the Taliban.......they have not had these yet)

We can and must think about contemporary problems – such as what strategy the U.S. should pursue in Afghanistan – through the lenses of relevant theories and historical analogies. But it is foolish to think within the box of a single analogy, such as the Iraq "surge," or a single theory, such as the idea that we can succeed at counterinsurgency and nation-building by deploying generous numbers of ground troops and focusing on winning the "hearts and minds" of local communities.

(Very nice academic semantics about the art of war....whilst ordinary Afghan's, and yes Americans are suffering...."Through the lenses of relevant theory....." like he was lecturing at West Point or something)

Our need to make quick decisions and cope with a complex world creates a powerful incentive for us to create "rules of thumb," default beliefs, habits, choices, or courses of action that we adopt almost without thinking. And yet when those in the halls of power make major decisions on the basis of such "rules of thumb," the results can sometimes be disastrous. It behooves political observers to be aware of new decision-making habits, and the spread of some new piece of "conventional wisdom," in their leaders.

It is important to remember that military leaders have a major incentive to endorse a COIN approach in Afghanistan. According to General Petraeus and other experts, most successful COIN operations require very high numbers of U.S. troops on the ground – numbers that may be politically and logistically impossible for the Obama administration to accept.

(Once they get their quota, they'll ask for more, and more...and when they finally don't, they'll blame the politicians)

Because the number of troops that can be reasonably demanded for a COIN operation is essentially limitless, mission failure can be blamed on the executive branch for not sending enough troops rather than on military leaders, the combat environment, or the COIN playbook itself. As Gen. McChrystal wrote in his assessment: "Success is not ensured by additional forces alone, but continued under resourcing will likely cause failure."

Organizational psychology and the logic of bureaucracies provide more clues into the wave of COIN-fever that appears to have struck so many of our political and military leaders. Simply put, it was neither easy nor cheap for the military to develop COIN doctrine as we attempted to salvage the war in Iraq in recent years, and now COIN feels like hard-won wisdom that we should put to the test in another theater of war. It’s a classic case of sunk costs: it is felt that we paid too much for COIN to abandon it now.

Policymakers’ belief in the power of COIN may encourage them to see military solutions where none exist. If the U.S. opts to send tens of thousands of additional ground troops to Afghanistan in order to pursue a comprehensive COIN strategy, it will be taking on a great deal of risk and incurring substantial additional costs in pursuit of a highly uncertain outcome.


Scott Ritter on Afghanistan.


McChrystal Doesn’t Get It—Does Obama?

By Scott Ritter at Truthdig.com

There is a curious phenomenon taking place in the American media at the moment: the
lionization of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan. Although he has taken a few lumps for playing politics with the White House, McChrystal has generally been sold to the American public as a “Zen warrior,” a counterinsurgency genius who, if simply left to his own devices, will be able to radically transform the ongoing debacle that is Afghanistan into a noble victory that will rank as one of the greatest political and military triumphs of modern history. McChrystal’s resume and persona (a former commander of America’s special operations forces, a tireless athlete and a scholar) have been breathlessly celebrated in several interviews and articles. Reporters depict him as an ascetic soldier who spouts words of wisdom to rival Confucius, Jesus and Muhammad.

(Yes there is NOTHING to win against in Afghanistan. America "won" in 2001, when "al-Qaeda" was defeated there, and Osama was allowed to escape from Tora Bora. Osama has since died probably in December 2001, because since that time he has not given direct media interviews to any journalists of note, which he had a habit of doing prior to that time.

The 40,000--50,000 Taliban militia assisted/guided by the Pakistani military with Washington's approval prior to 2001, is at best now about 10,000 regular fighters who want their country back from foreign rule......nothing inherently wrong in that under International Law. And the 5,000 foreign fighters in Afghanistan at that time from various Arab countries, Chechnya, Uzbekistan and other places often referred to as "al-Qaeda", are mostly dead, gone home or not worth bothering about-----100 in Afghanistan, and about 350 Pakistan......The Pakistani security people, who sold 650 innocents to the Americans under GWOT like to over inflate this figure, and continue with the lie that Osama is alive, but this is not the case. Pakistani assessments of foreign fighters figures must be taken with a pinch of salt.

In the current Waziristan campaign they claimed that upwards of 1500 "al-Qaeda' affiliated fighters were massed waiting in that region. Hopefully perhaps the Pakistani military will produce some of them.)

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent Gen. McChrystal to “fix” the war in Afghanistan in the way that his boss, that earlier military prophet Gen. David Petraeus, “fixed” Iraq. Whether by accident or design, McChrystal’s mission became a cause célèbre of sorts for an American media starved for good news, even if entirely fabricated, coming out of Afghanistan. One must remember that the general has accomplished little of note during his short tenure to date as the military commander in Afghanistan. His entire reputation is built around the potential to turn things around in Afghanistan. And to do this, McChrystal has said he needs time, and 40,000-plus additional American troops. There are currently around 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s request would raise that number to around 110,000 troops – the same number as the Soviets had deployed in Afghanistan at the height of their failed military adventure some 20 years ago.

McChrystal, or more accurately, his staff, has authored a not-so-secret report that outlines the reasoning behind this massive increase in American military involvement in Afghanistan. Rightly noting that the American-led effort is currently failing, McChrystal argues that only a massive infusion of U.S. troops, and a corresponding “surge” of American civilians, can achieve the stability necessary to transform Afghanistan from the failed state it is today. A viable nation capable of self-government, the new Afghanistan could maintain internal security so that terrorist organizations like al-Qaida will not be able to take root, flourish and once again threaten American security from the sanctuary of a lawless land. This concept certainly looks good on paper and plays well in the editorial section. And why shouldn’t it? It touches on all the romantic notions of America as liberator and defender of the oppressed. The problem is that the assumptions made in the McChrystal report are so far removed from reality as to be ludicrous.

(I'll bet the moon that America can never stabilize Afghanistan, and turn it into a functioning democracy.....because the real players in the Afghan play ground have other intentions, not withstanding the good people amongst the occupation forces......narcotics etc....if narcotics is the main reason you are there how can you have a normal functioning democracy in that country? Obviously you must make do with amoral crooks fronting your operations.............the type that sell their grandmother for a $......and there in lies the BASIC failure of the Afghan misadventure.

By the way I happen to think democracy is an universal gift that can work with ANY types of people......with some people it takes longer to take root, but democracy CAN work in any given society. If however you knowingly front crooked puppets, then democracy has a little struggle to take hold in that society....and then what you do is blame the people, because that's the easiest cop out, short of looking at your own actions and failures..."oh these people are primitive"..."We can't transfer our cultural values on to them"....."They have their own way of doing things")

McChrystal operates under the illusion that American military power can provide a shield from behind which Afghanistan can remake itself into a viable modern society. He has deluded himself and others into believing that the people of Afghanistan want to be part of such a grand social experiment, and furthermore that they will tolerate the United States being in charge. The reality of Afghan history, culture and society argue otherwise. The Taliban, once a defeated entity in the months following the initial American military incursion into Afghanistan, are resurgent and growing stronger every day. The principle source of the Taliban’s popularity is the resentment of the Afghan people toward the American occupation and the corrupt proxy government of Hamid Karzai. There is nothing an additional 40,000 American troops will be able to do to change that basic equation. The Soviets tried and failed. They deployed 110,000 troops, operating on less restrictive lines of communication and logistical supply than the United States. They built an Afghan army of some 45,000 troops. They operated without the constraints of American rules of engagement. They slaughtered around a million Afghans. And they lost, for the simple reason that the people of Afghanistan did not want them, or their Afghan proxies.

Some pundits and observers make note of the fact that the Afghan people were able to prevail over the Soviets only because of billions of dollars of U.S. aid, which together with similar funding from Saudi Arabia and the logistical support of Pakistan, allowed the Afghan resistance to coalesce, grow and ultimately defeat the Soviets and their Afghan allies. They note that there is no equivalent source of empowerment for the Taliban in Afghanistan today. But they are wrong. The Taliban receive millions of dollars from sympathetic sources in the Middle East, in particular from Saudi Arabia, and they operate not only from within Afghanistan, but also out of safe havens inside Pakistan.

Indeed, one of the unique aspects of the Afghan conflict is the degree to which it has expanded into Pakistan, making any military solution in one theater contingent on military victory in the other. But the reality is that the more one employs military force in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, the more one strengthens the cause and resources of the Islamic insurgents in both places. Pashtunistan, once a fanciful notion built around the concept of a united Pashtun people (the population in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan are primarily drawn from Pashtun tribes), has become a de facto reality. The decision by the British in 1897 to separate the Pashtun through the artificial device of the so-called Durand Line (which today constitutes the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan) has been exposed today as a futile effort to undermine tribal links. No amount of military force can reverse this.

Thus the solution itself becomes the problem, thereby creating a never-ending circular conflict which has the United States expending more and more resources to resolve a situation that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground in Afghanistan, and everything to do with crafting a politically viable salve for what is in essence a massive self-inflicted wound. It is the proverbial dog chasing after its own tail, a frustrating experience made even more so by the fact that any massive commitment of troops brings with it the fatal attachment of national pride, individual hubris and, worst of all, the scourge of domestic American politics, so that by the time this dog bites its tail, it will be so blinded by artificialities that rather than recognize its mistake, it will instead proceed to consume itself. In the case of Afghanistan, our consumption will be measured in the lives of American servicemen and women, national treasure, national honor, and, of course the lives of countless Afghan dead and wounded.

The manner in which McChrystal has peddled his plan for Afghanistan to the American media, and to Congress, may be politically savvy. It is certainly insubordinate. The decision to employ American military power is the sole prerogative of the American president. A general may offer advice, but any effort to engage the machinery of politics to pressure a sitting president defies the basic constitutional tenet of civilian control over the military. President Obama, once a constitutional law professor, should know as much, and would do well to severely reprimand McChrystal for his actions. Or better yet, Obama should fire McChrystal and replace him with someone who respects the rule of law and the chain of command.

Obama may have won the Nobel Peace Prize, but if he allows himself to be bullied into supporting McChrystal’s foray into Afghanistan, he will reveal himself as the worst kind of warmonger. True, he didn’t invent the Afghan quagmire. That honor resides with George W. Bush, who also is to blame for the American fiasco in Iraq. But history will be surprisingly gentle toward America’s 43rd president. Bush will share the blame for his calamitous military decisions with the mistaken policies of previous administrations, a compliant Congress, headstrong advisers, servile intelligence agencies and, of course, the shock of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush will be seen more as a useful idiot than a ruthless ideologue. Obama, with his obvious intelligence, soaring rhetorical skills and Nobel credentials, does not readily fit such a characterization. If he decides to reinforce failure in Afghanistan by dispatching tens of thousands more American troops to that disaster, America’s 44th president will cement himself as a grand fraud, a hawk hiding in dove feathers. Given his potential for doing good, one clearly would not want such a scenario to play out.

The president’s lack of military experience screams out when he calls America’s involvement in Afghanistan a “good war.” He would have been better off trying to make the case for a justifiable war, or even a necessary war, but to label a process that brings about the death and injury of thousands as “good” makes me wonder about Obama’s fitness to be commander in chief. His seeming inexperience on national security affairs and foreign policy leave him vulnerable to domestic political pressures that emanate from these arenas. The president does possess the vision to see a world in which America stands side by side with other nations as an equal, operating with a shared notion of due process and respect for the rule of law, but that doesn’t square with any decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Expanding the war in Afghanistan will lend credence to the central worry about Obama: that, at the end of the day, this man of vision might in fact be little more than an Illinois politician who is willing to barter away American life, treasure and good will for political gain on the domestic front. And, in doing so, it will undermine his noble vision of an America “resetting” its relationship with the world following eight years of unilateralist militarism.

A true leader, one with substance and gravitas, would be able to stand up to the combined pressure of the military, the right-wing of Congress and the American media. He would draw the correct conclusions from the lessons of history, which prove again and again that Afghanistan is not a problem that can be solved by foreign military intervention. The fact that Obama might be compelled to alleviate the political pressure he is receiving from these sources by condemning America to another decade of death and destruction in Afghanistan and, most probably, Pakistan, reinforces any perception of his weakness as a national leader.

Afghanistan has, over the centuries, earned its reputation as the graveyard of empires. Just ask the Greeks, Mongols, British and Russians. If Barack Obama ultimately agrees to dispatch more American troops to Afghanistan, he will ensure not only that America will add its name to the list of those who have failed in their effort to conquer the unconquerable, but also that his name will join the ranks of those leaders throughout history who succumbed to the temptations of hubris when given the choice between war and peace. The Nobel committee will have failed in its gambit to motivate America’s 44th president to embrace the mantle of peacemaker, and the American people will be left to sort through the detritus of war brought on by yet another failed president.

Of course, the future is not yet set in stone. The decision to dispatch more troops, although the subject of much rumor and speculation, has been delayed pending the final dispensation of Afghanistan’s controversial presidential election. One can only hope that President Obama will take advantage of this timely “pause” to reconsider his options regarding Afghanistan beyond the single-minded rush to reinforce a current policy the U.S. military has acknowledged as having gone nowhere in the eight years of American military engagement.

Vice President Joe Biden had earlier proposed a policy course that would have de-emphasized military engagement with the Taliban, focusing instead on rooting out the forces of al-Qaida still operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama was reportedly not sold on Biden’s thinking when it was first presented last March. Perhaps now, upon reflection, the president will do the right thing and reduce America’s military involvement in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, either along the lines proposed by Vice President Biden, or through some other mechanism. There is no military solution to the problems facing the United States today in Afghanistan, and thus the correct course of action is to de-militarize the situation by reducing, not expanding, America’s military presence.

Clearly Gen. Stanley McChrystal is not the man for this task. He should be replaced by someone within the ranks of the U.S. military who shares Obama’s vision of peace, and with it the need to redefine the mission in South Asia. The legitimate requirements of American national security will not be satisfied by any massive military commitment to the region. Hopefully, President Obama will recognize this fact and get out. That would be a sign of greatness, and present to the American people and the rest of the world a leader worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.


Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer, chief U.N. weapons inspector and the author of numerous books on foreign policy.