Sick Uncle Tom Clown makes an Orwellian speech

.
.
.
.

Ten years in Afghanistan means its the longest "war" the USA has ever fought, based on ignoble causes, which at least a third of the USA servicemen are aware of.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the bankers have made fat profits from the Afghan heroin/opium trade.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the further criminalization of the USA, as it conducts wars for criminal narcotics purposes, where State institutions become corrupted and compromised for this specific sole purpose. It subverts the state into thinking that this is the ONLY way the USA can generate wealth, and create things....which benefits a few Wall Street Jews, but harms millions in the USA, Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

Ten years in Afghanistan means that due to the criminality and double standards of the USA occupation of the country......distorting double rectum-speak becomes the norm of the State.

Ten years in Afghanistan means that many occupation servicemen have lost their lives for a worthless artificial Western Intelligence concocted lie.

Ten years in Afghanistan means that many occupation servicemen have suffered serious injury for a worthless artificial Western Intelligence concocted lie.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the USA has expended anywhere between $600--1000 billion in Afghanistan for a fake security cause, concocted by Western Intelligence.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the "Opportunity Cost" loss of the above money that could have been invested in the USA to make the country shining and successful, and not a basket case debt ridden country beholden to China, along with the real shame that goes with it.

Ten years in Afghanistan means thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have died, and the subsequent loss of dignity, opportunity and development that ordinary Afghans could have enjoyed but for the faggotty games of Western Intelligence.

Ten years in Afghanistan means that the country has seen little development under American occupation, little stability and is considered among the most corrupted, Failed States in the world, run by a Kleptocracy of American elected puppets running an American sanctioned narco State.

Ten years in Afghanistan means its security problem for Pakistan, and to a lessor extent Iran.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the Heroin grown by the American occupation forces in Afghanistan is exported to Pakistan, Central Asia, Iran, Ukraine, Russia, EU and North America.........causing suffering for millions of people around the world.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the laws introduced to make America safer have in reality been inverted against average Americans into humiliation, degradation, servitude and loss of basic liberty within a Police State.

Ten years in Afghanistan means that the military/industrial complex has profited hugely, but that the middle class in the USA has been disappearing, and the working class squeezed.

Ten years in Afghanistan means the USA military machine is less able to fight REAL foes in REAL wars, but can only manage fights against Western Intelligence organized "Controlled Opposition" entities such as the Taliban.

No nation "wins' from wars, be they a few days or 10 years.
































_________________________

Obama Marks Decade in Afghanistan With False Statements on Wars

Obama claimed America has been made safer and that the wars are drawing to an end, despite facts to the contrary

by John Glaser, at antiwar.com

President Barak Obama marked the ten-year anniversary of the war in Afghanistan with a paper statement, claiming to already have made a public speech reflecting the decade of war last month, on the anniversary of September 11th.

The statement contained the usual platitudes of patriotism and glorification of war. ”Thanks to the extraordinary service of these Americans, our citizens are safer and our nation is more secure,” Obama said.

Obama made these statements, of course, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that these ten years of war, and in Afghanistan specifically, have exacerbated the terrorist threat America faces. War, occupation, Afghanistan’s corrupt client state, thuggish US-supported militias and a brutal night raid strategy have all increased anti-American hatred and resentment among a poor, uneducated, overly religious population.

Obama also misled Americans in his statement by pretending that American troops were withdrawing in Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan. In Iraq, an expanded diplomatic presence and military presence will remain past the December deadline for withdrawal. US presence, and heavy influence over the Iraqi regime in general will not go away any time soon.

In Afghanistan, the transition to Afghan-controlled security has gone terribly wrong and the presence of “trainers” has been increasing. Meanwhile, top military officials have repeatedly explained that a heavy US military presence will remain in Afghanistan well beyond the 2014 date to withdraw.

USA permanent bases in Afghanistan.

.
.
.
.
A long term MILITARIST based American occupation of Afghanistan, with NATO in toe constitutes a significant security threat to Pakistan, Iran, South Asia, China, Central Asia and of course Russia. All must work together to persuade the Americans to leave Afghanistan permanently via the SCO.

____________________________

Globalists Plan to Stay in Afghanistan Forever

Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

Ben Farmer, writing for The Telegraph on Friday, reported that the U.S. and Afghanistan have reached an agreement that would allow American special forces and air force to remain in the country until 2024. The agreement arrives as the United States claims it will pack up and leave by the end of 2014.

In December of 2009, during a speech delivered at West Point, Obama said troops would begin leaving Afghanistan. Prior to the speech, the Pentagon said it would send an additional 30,000 troops as part of a “mini-surge.” NATO was asked to send between 5,000 and 10,000 troops as part of an international force. In early 2010, the Pentagon increased substantially its “new civilian forces” outside of Kabul, according to ABC News.

Afghanistan’s hand-picked president, Hamid Karzai, confirmed earlier this year that the United States plans to establish permanent bases in his country. “Yes they want this (permanent bases) and we have been negotiating with them,” Karzai said at a press conference in his presidential palace in February. “We believe that a long-term relationship with the United States is in the interest of Afghanistan.”

The deal was negotiated without the participation or approval of the Afghan parliament or the grand tribal council known as the Loya Jirga.

The plan announced last week was peddled as part of the effort to train the Afghan military and police. “If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment,” said Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Karzai’s top security adviser. “If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.”

The continued U.S. presence at numerous bases in Afghanistan is central to the generational war planned to fight against so-called international terrorism, itself a creation of U.S. and British intelligence. “We know we will be confronted with international terrorists. 2014, is not the end of international terrorist networks and we have a common commitment to fight them. For this purpose also, the US needs facilities,” said Spanta.

Andrey Avetisyan, Russian ambassador to Kabul, told The Telegraph permanent U.S. bases should not be required. “I don’t understand why such bases are needed. If the job is done, if terrorism is defeated and peace and stability is brought back, then why would you need bases?” he asked. “If the job is not done, then several thousand troops, even special forces, will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do. It is not possible.”

(Rather strange given the Russian ambassadors rational considered position, and presumably a view that is also held by his government in Moscow. Why is Russia helping the American occupation forces in Afghanistan with logistics through Russia/Turkmenistan when there is a massive heroin epidemic in Russia with annual deaths in the 10,000 of thousands, crime soaring relating to drugs and huge medical costs, and social costs.....which are clearly attributable to the Afghan heroin, which is a business managed by the Anglo-American troops in Afghanistan.

Or if you like the "New Opium Wars in the 21st century part II".

One clearly understands the Jewish Oligarchical control of Russia takes precedence in state policy to a certain degree, but surely on the basis of national survival and self interests........the Russian government needs to take stronger action against the occupation of Afghanistan by the USA, the real intention of which is spelled out by Brzezinski himself no less,....and is thus also aimed militarily against Russia.......one is baffled as to why KGB/martial arts expert PUTIN is so PASSIVE in relation to the growing menace of the USA/NATO in Afghanistan, and the long term implications of this for Central Asia and Russia it self........China at a very minimum has said no to the USA, when they were approached in 2009 to allow supplies through China for the occupation forces in Afghanistan. Kirghistan will end its supply cooperation in 2014.

Why cannot KGB ultra patriotic Putin with the tough guy martial arts image coordinate a Central Asian + Russia blockade of the occupation forces in Afghanistan? )

The deal (permanent American military bases airlifting drugs out of the country) is designed to continue the engineered conflict in Afghanistan.

The Taliban have said they will not negotiate peace with the government in Kabul until all U.S. troops have left the country. According to Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy leader of the “peace” council set up by Karzai to seek a settlement with the Taliban, the deal to keep a substantial number of U.S. troops in the country will intensify the insurgency.

In 2010, Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari said the Taliban was created by the CIA and ISI, the Pakistan intelligence agency.

He also said the Pentagon is orchestrating Taliban attacks.

(IN Pakistan also......through the ISI. So in simple terms American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan because of the actions of American security who work for certain elites in the West who profit from arms sales from conducting indefinite wars, and the Afghan opium which is worth about $50-80 billion annually to such criminalized elites)

Most Afghans believe the U.S. is funding and supporting the Taliban in order to continue the war and occupation of their country.

“The US uses Israel to threaten the Arab states, and they want to make Afghanistan into the same thing,” a highly educated Afghan professional told The Guardian in May of 2010.

For more detail, see Afghans: U.S. Created and Funds Taliban.

Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser and Rockefeller globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, that controlling Eurasia is essential to the global pre-eminence of the elite. “It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” he writes (by “America,” Brzezinski means the global elite represented by the CFR and the Trilateral Commission).

(meaning China and a resurgent Russia)

The Taliban originated from from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan following the CIA’s war against the Soviet Union. Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has admitted that the CIA created the Taliban. Harrison is an expert on Asian affairs and has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. He is closely aligned with the globalists through the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The anti-Soviet Mujahideen that provided recruits for the Taliban was aided by the CIA, a fact admitted by its former director, Robert Gates. The secret plan to create the Mujahideen prior to the invasion of the country was “was an excellent idea,” according to Brzezinski. “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” he told Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998.

The Pentagon will not leave Afghanistan in 2024. It plans to stay there forever and operate as a “muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers,” as former Marine Major General Smedley Butler said in 1933, referring to his work for them in the Philippines, China, and Latin America.

19th century colonial wars for resources are out of fashion.

.
.
.
.
Most credible successful businessmen in the USA, who don't have shady backgrounds and private airports agree that resource wars are a thing of the past, and the best way to secure resources is through normal business relations....this is what the USA oil lobby would argue in relation to Iraq. When the USA leaves Iraq finally the country will not be the biggest player in Iraq's oil exports.

Conducting modern wars are costly, whether its a foot force or a mechanized force. It is no longer cost effective to maintain military forces to protect foreign resources in other HOSTILE countries.

The Third World, the primary target of neo-colonialism has wised up to the games of the colonial powers through bitter historical experience and knowledge which means the resistance to neo-colonialism is far more sophisticated and serious then it would have been in the 18th and 19th century.

The USA in the 21st century is no Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar at the Zenith of Imperial power. The USA is a severely debt ridden, corrupt, premier narco state stumbling from crisis to crisis, AND dominated by Jews and secret Jews who don't particularly love the country or care for its future. The USA with its 800 foreign military bases, and unofficial $1500 billion security budget is overstretched and destabilized.

The article below by Pepe Escobar is good overall, but fails to mention the use of Afghanistan as a huge heroin plantation by the occupation forces as a later day East India Company.......the problem of which affects many regional countries from Iran to Russia. Without mentioning this crucial "enterprise" one can never comprehend the rationale of why the occupation forces want ceaseless wars against the "Controlled Opposition" Taliban as a justification to stay in the country which according to certain British military officers may be for decades.

ALL credible writers about Afghanistan must write about this fact, otherwise they by default become elaborate spook funded gate keepers who provide the rational to stay in the hapless country longer because of "all them minerals and GOLD in thar hills in Afghanistani".......which less face it have no scientific geologically funded basis......but is just SOOOO convenient for the power points of the Pentagon.

___________________________

Asian powers jostle for position amid vast mineral reserves and strategic oil pipelines, while West keeps bombing.

Pepe Escobar in Aljazeera

Afghanistan contains a huge wealth of minerals and precious stones, such as emeralds [GALLO/GETTY]

Afghanistan is not often perceived as a mineral Holy Grail.

But, as it turns out, between $1-3 trillion in mineral wealth lies unexplored across the Hindu Kush. There's enough uranium, lithium, copper and iron ore to potentially turn Afghanistan into a commodities powerhouse.

The Pentagon knows all about it - how could it not? And the Russians have known about it since at least the 1970s, when they mapped out all the uranium riches of northern Afghanistan.

Washington may have complex geopolitical energy reasons to remain in Afghanistan - as explored in a previous Al Jazeera article that generated enormous reader response.

For its part, Islamabad is still obsessed with viewing Afghanistan as a pliable satrap. But the going gets much juicier when one looks at key Eurasian players such as Russia, India and China and their own, non-Pentagonised reasons to come to this mineral Walhalla.

Business suits, not bombs

Early next month a crucial bidding war begins in Kabul. It concerns Hajigak, the world's biggest iron ore deposits, which are located in central Afghanistan (at least 1.8bn tons, according to a Soviet estimate made in the 1960s). To the sound of much predictable Taliban grumbling, all 15 bidding companies are from India - including giants Tata Steel and JSW, the country's third-largest private steel company.

A stable, business-friendly Afghanistan is absolutely essential for India - a gateway to oil and gas from Iran, Central Asia and the Caspian. India is building power stations and strategic roads, such as the one linking Afghanistan with the Iranian port of Chahbahar.

Few may know it, but it's not only Africa that is the object of a fierce India-China business "war". Afghanistan is also a key chessboard. There are five types of minerals on the Afghan horizon - gold, copper, iron ore, and inevitably, oil and gas - and the Indians and the Chinese are all over them.

China Metallurgical Corporation already got a big prize in 2008 - the Aynak copper mine in Logar, southeast of Kabul - for $3.4bn. Why? Because Western companies were asleep at the wheel (or paranoid with "security"); because the Chinese wasted no time; and, according to the Afghan Ministry of Mines, "because of their package" (in characteristic Chinese style, that includes building a whopping $6bn railway connecting northern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan with western China).

Kabul will get up to $350m a year in royalties. At least 5,000 jobs will be created, with added benefits such as health clinics, roads and schools. Security may indeed be a huge problem; there's a war going on and safe transit routes are a mirage. But as war-weary Afghans are poignantly stressing, that's already a start.

The business track in Afghanistan now runs parallel to the political track.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari visited Tehran twice within only three weeks. He had two face-to-face meetings with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The House of Saud, to put it mildly, freaked out.

After all, this Islamabad-Tehran lovefest totally smashes the myth that the so-called "Shia crescent" is the greatest threat to Sunnis in the Middle East and South Asia.

Washington, predictably, was also hardly fond of it. The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq can be seen as an attempt by the US to encircle Iran from both east and west (that's certainly Tehran's view), and Washington believed Pakistan would play the same role on Iran's southeast border.

In a fascinating exchange that must have choked many a throat across the Potomac, Khamenei told Zardari that Pakistan's "real enemy" was the West, "and the US on top of it", while Zardari told Khamenei that Iran was a "model of resistance and path to progress". What next? Karachi taxis sporting Khomeini magnets?

But the most fascinating part is that Tehran and Islamabad are now discussing not only security matters but also business, such as an upcoming free-trade agreement and a currency swap scheme that would move both countries away from the US dollar.

On the security front, Islamabad has proposed what would be an Integrated Border Management Regime - that is, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan fighting together against drug trafficking. That also happens to be Russia's number-one priority in Central and South Asia. Over twelve tonnes of pure heroin - that's over 3bn single doses - reach Russia every year from Afghanistan.

On the business front, it was all about the crucial Pipelineistan gambit, the Iran-Pakistan (IP), also known as the "peace pipeline". IP may supply as much as 50 per cent of Pakistan's energy needs.

There are delays, of course. By the end of 2012, Iran will have built its whole stretch of pipeline up to the Pakistani border. Yet Pakistan will only start working on its own stretch by early 2012.

But by 2015 IP should be online, forming a strategic umbilical cord between Shia Iran and majority-Sunni Pakistan and rocking the Eurasian geopolitical equation. IP will cross ultra-strategic Balochistan, which is not only dripping with resources but which also, as a transit corridor, provides the shortest access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

Iran and Pakistan as allies?

So look for another unintended consequence of Washington's obsession with the war on terror: Iran and Pakistan as increasingly close allies. One can already foresee Tehran sharing on-the-ground intelligence with Islamabad on Washington's myriad covert ops inside Pakistani territory.

Another unintended consequence - unthinkable only two or three years ago - is that now Tehran, which is tremendously influential in northwest Afghanistan, views the Taliban the Mullah Omar way: as an indigenous "national resistance" movement against US/NATO occupation and perpetual military bases. Moreover, Tehran is also in sync with Islamabad in their support for the wily Hamid Karzai, who has increasingly distanced himself from Washington.

There are huge problems, of course. Although Zardari told Khamenei that Islamabad supports Karzai and an "Afghan-led and Afghan-owned" peace process, hardly any progress can be made without a substantial reversal of Pakistan's official Afghan policy, which considers Afghanistan as little more than "strategic depth" in a confrontation with India, and which does everything to contain India's influence in Afghanistan.

Moreover, regional priorities differ. Moscow worries about its own "war on drugs," wants NATO out of its backyard, and does not want US military bases in Afghanistan. Beijing worries about the Taliban influencing the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Tehran will keep cultivating its privileged relationship with Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks - and not Pashtuns.

What is certain is that any unilateral Made-in-USA road map for Afghanistan, of the "surge, bribe and stay" variety, is doomed to failure without input from these key Eurasian players.

Tragedy aside, the US/NATO war in Afghanistan is now seriously flirting with surrealism - witness the Taliban's accusation that the West hacked their website, their phones, their emails and spread false rumours of Mullah Omar's death. Forget about "medieval towelheads on hash"; these are iPhone-friendly Taliban who tweet and post on Facebook - and command quite a following. Unsurprisingly, gloomy war-machine NATO "declines to comment".

It will be fascinating to watch what schemes the House of Saud will concoct to smash the new business-friendly Tehran-Islamabad axis; after all, Saudi Arabia essentially treats Pakistan as a sort of political/economic annex.

But not as fascinating as watching which Russian, Chinese and Indian companies will make a killing off of Afghanistan's mineral wealth while the Atlanticist West bomb themselves to irrelevancy.

Afghanistan......permanent American military presence in the country

.
.
.
.
Afghanistan is to India what Inner Mongolia and Korea strategically means to China from a historical perspective.

The long -term hostile occupation of the country by the USA, which additionally HARVESTS heroin so that the profits can be laundered by the big banks in New York and London, amongst other things is obviously not good for the region.....with massive quantities of Afghan heroin going into Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Pakistan ....and India lately.

One would have thought given the social and human cost these countries endure, they would have united and made a stronger effort in ousting the USA from Afghanistan, rather than meekly watch from the distance......for example creating NEW RESISTANCE GROUPS TO THE OCCUPATION WHICH ARE NOT IDEOLOGICALLY/emotionally LINKED TO THE much dreaded medieval Taliban(created by the USA).

Its a simple enough task surely.........then supply them with heavy equipment. The ISI which is funded by the Americans will never give the Taliban heavy equipment....especially Lt SAMs.

If the USA knowingly DUMPS massive quantities of Afghan heroin into such countries, why can't they fight back? Or must they endure politely this state of affairs?

________________________________

Neutral Afghanistan serves regional stability

M.K. Bhadrakumar originally posted at therearenosunglasses.com

The U.S. and NATO now acknowledge that a complete withdrawal from the South and Central Asian region by 2014 is not on the cards. Regional powers face a challenge.

The Anglo-American project to craft an Afghan endgame that ensures long-term western military presence in the South and Central Asian region has entered a critical phase. The United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) now acknowledge that a complete withdrawal from the region by 2014 is not on the cards. Several stages of diplomatic and political deception concealed this “hidden agenda.” Regional powers — Pakistan and India, in particular — are sadder and wiser today.

Looking back, the military stalemate in Afghanistan provided a persuasive argument for the West to justify the opening of a political track. The U.S. and Britain literally shoved down the throat of regional countries at the London conference in January last year their idea of reconciliation with the Taliban. India was assured that what was being contemplated was mere “reintegration” — and not “reconciliation” — and was given a bit of tutoring in the subtle uses of the English language. Pakistan was in a triumphalist mood, having been assured privately that it would be the kingmaker in any peace process. Equally, Russia was basking in the sunshine of the newly-invented process of “reset” in relations with the U.S. Iran, which was consistently wise to the western game plan, boycotted the London conference. China, of course, kept its head below the parapet.

Following the London conference, which must stand out as a first-rate drama of diplomatic deception, the U.S. and Britain rightly proceeded to claim an “international mandate” for talking to the Taliban. With the help of Saudi Arabia, a series of secret meetings with the representatives of various insurgent groups commenced. NATO aircraft provided transportation for Taliban participants in these meetings and according to Der Spiegel, Berlin got U.S. intelligence operatives and Taliban representatives to meet face-to-face on German soil more than once. All the while, the Anglo-American deception continued and a thick layer of fog surrounded the entire process. Mark Sedwill, U.K.’s special representative on Af-Pak, during last week’s visit to New Delhi, said with a delightfully airy vagueness that will be the envy of any diplomat: “There are channels of communication being explored… This outreach to the senior leaders is still in the very early stages. And we don’t know how serious they are… It is Afghan-led but that doesn’t mean that others are not involved. Others are involved. All initiatives are with Afghan consent and on their behalf.”

Meanwhile, former Afghanistan President and head of the Afghan High Council for Peace, Burhanuddin Rabbani, revealed that his members have held preliminary talks with the main Taliban group led by Mullah Mohammad Omar and the so-called Quetta Shura and that the “multiple channels” are indeed “getting momentum.” According to the Guardian, representatives of the Haqqani network visited Kabul “very recently.” Simultaneously, the U.S. is spearheading a move in New York for the removal of the Taliban from the United Nations’ list of terrorists so that they can travel and openly take part in talks. The idea has been floated that the Taliban be permitted to open “representative office” in a third country.

The U.S. is piloting a proposal to remove 20 Taliban figures from the U.N. list. Alongside, it is pushing for a range of changes to the U.N.’s so-called “1275 list,” which comprises around 450 terrorists belonging to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The U.S. wants to “separate” the Taliban from al-Qaeda and the justification being given is that the al-Qaeda and the Taliban belong to two “different fields of action” as unlike the al-Qaeda which is a global organization, the Taliban is “Afghanistan-centric.” The plain truth, however, is that the U.S. wants to hold out the tantalizing prospect of lifting sanctions against select Taliban figures as a bargaining chip to get them to talk and cut deals directly with American negotiators. Unsurprisingly, having been caught unawares at the London conference, Russia, China and India are today on guard and view the U.S. moves at the U.N. Security Council with reserve.

The western propaganda has drummed up a grim scenario in Afghanistan, which provides the raison d’etre of long-term western military bases. The visiting French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, told journalists in Washington last week that the U.S. is engaged in tripartite talks with the Taliban and Pakistan, that it wants the Taliban to be part of the solution but has had difficulty so far finding credible interlocutors on the Taliban side who are willing to talk peace and that talks are under way “as we speak.” He said that despite the U.S.’ surge a year ago, and notwithstanding claims of progress by U.S. and NATO generals commanding the troops, actual progress against the Taliban is inadequate. “The strategy doesn’t succeed as well as we expected on the ground,” he said. He went on to doubt the feasibility of the “transition” through 2014 that is being planned in July, since the Afghan army and police are ill-prepared to assume responsibility for security.

Regional opposition

The sum and substance of what Mr. Juppe said is that despite the efforts to engage the Taliban and notwithstanding the “transition” that is being planned, the insurgency will not end in the near future. What he left unsaid was that continued western troop presence beyond 2014, therefore, is a must. To be sure, Washington is secretly negotiating a ‘strategic partnership agreement’ with the Kabul government that provides for military bases on a long-term basis. Again, the U.S. is in denial but its doublespeak is increasingly getting exposed. The regional powers oppose a long-term U.S.-NATO military presence but Washington counts on the Kabul government to deliver. The Kabul government is on the horns of a dilemma insofar as the American dollar holds its own attractions in the Hindu Kush but then, one has to be alive first to enjoy the good life and the bottom line is that Afghan people may not like the prospect of foreign military occupation and the regional powers are opposing it. In a fit of disgust, Pakistan reportedly advised the Kabul government to swap the American dollar for the Chinese yuan. The Afghan bazaar is agonizing. Whereas the U.S. remains confident about the Afghan bazaari culture and estimates that the Afghan protagonists after some pretentious hard bargaining will ultimately settle for a deal that won’t burn a hole in America’s pocket.

Core issue

It is a sad state of affairs that a once-proud nation is being traded in the bazaar. The core issue for the U.S. is that the Taliban should mellow on its uncompromising opposition to the long-term western troop presence as quid pro quo for what passes for “reconciliation.” To this end, Washington needs to deal with the Taliban directly, on a one-to-one basis without Pakistani or Afghani intermediaries — despite the U.S.’ proforma acknowledgement all through of Pakistan’s key role as ‘facilitator’ and despite paying lip-service that reconciliation with the Taliban ought to be “Afghan-led.” This tussle lies at the core of the U.S.-Pakistan tensions, as Islamabad is credited with influence over the Quetta Shura. Pakistan’s military leadership resents that contrary to earlier pledges, when the crunch time approached, the U.S. bypassed the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency operatives began networking directly with various militant organisations. Through two months of sustained grilling of the U.S.’s ace intelligence operative Raymond Davis in a Lahore jail by the ISI, Pakistani military leadership got to know a lot about the reach of the CIA’s penetration of Pakistan’s body polity.

A huge challenge faces Indian policymakers also. Quite obviously, New Delhi views these developments with concern. The good part is that it has measured the “big picture” while being what Washington fondly calls the U.S.’ “indispensable partner in the 21st century.” Thus, New Delhi persists with its far-sighted dialogue approach toward Pakistan although it is deeply disappointed by Pakistan’s lack or response on 26/11 investigations and on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure. New Delhi also takes care not to identify with the U.S.’s ‘containment’ strategy toward China.

Not much ingenuity is required to anticipate that India’s interests will be severely damaged if this region becomes the arena of a “new cold war” stemming out the long-term NATO military presence in South and Central Asia. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took the initiative to strengthen New Delhi’s ties with Kabul while judiciously leaving it to the latter to set the parameters in deference to Pakistani sensitivities.

The Indian move to seek membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) promises to provide a much-needed forum for New Delhi to partake in regional processes where India gets to work with Russia, China and Pakistan. India’s policymakers are doing extraordinarily well in navigating the country’s passage through a rather dangerous situation.

The Anglo-American enterprise capitalised on the absence of a regional initiative. The U.S.’ diplomacy brilliantly succeeded in creating disruptions in Russia’s and India’s traditional ties with Iran to isolate Tehran, which is an influential player in Afghanistan, apart from tapping into the contradictions in India’s relations with China and Pakistan. The U.S. selectively engaged Russia under the rubric of “reset.” On the whole, however, the regional powers are today a wiser lot about the criticality of a neutral Afghanistan.

( The writer is a former diplomat.)

Occupied Ariana.........for Heroin and the Rothschilds empire.

.
.
.
.
The problem with these left wing online sites is that they report the truth (richest country on earth attacks poorest country on earth, which is bad for Afghans and not much benefit for most Americans) without ANY attempt at explaining the real background to the problem, so that ordinary people in America can have a better grasp of the motivations of the important actors who are directly responsible for such meaningless tragedies in far off remote distant lands that had in the recent past no connections to America in any conceivable way. (Wired, Common Dreams, Alternet) .......the article is a Hotdog without the ketchup, mustard and onions......its bland, and in that sense worthless.....it is stating the obvious, which most of us already know (bread is made from wheat, endless war bad for any country.) Bubba Smith who works as a car mechanic doesn't visit such sites.

Now in the era of crypto-Jew Murdocks Fox News, and CNN and all the rest......what Common Dreams is doing might seem "remarkable" such as things are in the USA MSM, but still a site which purports to be alternative with a much smaller selective audience, it should try harder and be more honest with its readers.

Truths:

1. American foreign policy is NOT dictated by America strategically, but by the Rothschilds of London who are defacto "sovereigns" of the global Jewish tribe. The Rothschilds use their American fronts/agents to control American government policy, and this is further reinforced/complemented by AIPAC, which focuses on Israel exclusively.(Soros, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Clinton's, Bush clan, Anglofiles in the administration....CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger Group) ............the Rothschilds don't attempt to dictate every aspect of American state policy as that would be foolish and impossible, but rather the big issues which have a Rothschild economic and political interest....oil/heroin etc........classic example of this is the toppling the Shah of Iran by the USA, and specifically by Brzezinski, by Kissinger, by George Ball and all the rest of the Rothschild agents in the USA. The toppling of the Shah of Iran was bad for the USA, with a loss of an good safe reliable ally, the loss of potential business worth $700--1000 billion between 1979--2011 (JOBS), loss of American influence in the country with no embassy, BUT deemed a success for the Rothschilds of London......Ditto Mubarak of Egypt, Gaddafi installed by the USA in 1969, Bahrain where American forces are based...and Saudi Arabia???

2. The USA is in Afghanistan because of the profits which are being made from Afghan Heroin. The retail profits from this business is said to be worth anything between $50--$80 billion. The Rothschilds of London have organized and profited from the drugs business since the East India Company days, when they inter- married with the Jewish Sassons out of Mumbai, in the 19th century. "The City' in London is the premier global center which has facilitated the laundering of global drugs money for the past 200 years. British leaders nervously and anxiously visit Helmand Afghanistan frequently to exhort the British military to continue with their noble deeds. The American military and the British military play a major logistical role in facilitating this drugs business into Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, India, Russia, Western Europe and North America. Since 2001, the 10,000 colonial troops of the British military have been based in Helmand province, the highest heroin growing province in Afghanistan, where production of Heroin has soared since the British colonial forces arrived there, and began helping Afghan farmers grow more poppy in a pseudo colonial plantation cash crop scenario. Afghan Heroin benefit a few Jews........but harm many in the USA, Europe, UK and the rest of the world.

3. Israel has long been unhappy about Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, and used the USA and India to try and curb and neutralize the program since the 1970's. As early as 1974, the Rothschild agent in the USA, Henry Kissinger conveyed to Pakistan the threats not to develop nuclear weapons. AFGHANISTAN thus NOW provides a base for these very same international elements to attack, destabilize Pakistan, and thus eventually neutralize its nuclear program through the fake narrative of GWOT, "al-Qaeda" and the American created Taliban........which the Pakistan military must engage and fight for ever for the USA.

4. 9/11 was not carried by "al-Qaeda" with its leadership in Afghanistan. OBL until his death in 2001 was to the last an American recruited agent. There is no "al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan. The Taliban was created by the USA in 1994, using the Pakistani military.The Taliban are "Controlled Opposition" to the USA "liberators" of the country and is managed through the ISI of Pakistan.

Pleading to ordinary Americans for justice might have some merit, and is better than nothing, but ultimately ordinary Afghans must take destiny in their own hands, and liberate their own country themselves under the principles of "Self Determination" clearly laid out in UN charters and International law........and NOW opportunistically hailed by the very same USA/UK in the case of Egypt post Mubarak, Libya and Tunisia recently, very cynically.

The Taliban is "Controlled Opposition" and worthless, so alternative credible sources of resistance must be found against the colonial occupiers of Afghanistan which can militarily defeat them. Along this process what is required is greater disenchantment with the Kabul puppet government and greater mutiny within the ranks of the Tajik dominated security forces. Also crucial is that Russia and Pakistan cease facilitating this criminal occupation of Afghanistan for their own good. Finally countries such as Iran and Pakistan back a new credible resistance movement within AFGHANISTAN logistically so that they can fight the colonial occupiers more effectively as is their duty under International Law.

________________

The Afghan War is Brutal, Expensive, Unpopular, and Ineffective – So Why Are We Spending Billions on It?

Leading Afghan Feminist Wants the U.S. and NATO to Leave Her Nation

by Sonali Kolhatkar at commondreams.org

"The sad truth is that Obama’s war policies have turned out to be even more of a nightmare than I expected.” – Malalai Joya, A Woman Among Warlords

While millions of Americans are experiencing unemployment, wage stagnation, rising tuition, dwindling social services, and poverty at levels not seen since the Great Depression, an unjustifiably large proportion of our taxes are being used to cause death and destruction in Afghanistan. With Afghanistan being the longest war the U.S. has ever officially waged, we should carefully examine the costs of the war - financial and otherwise - and ask ourselves, is it really worth it?

The war costs taxpayers between $500,000 to $1 million per soldier in Afghanistan every year. Since President Obama deployed thousands of more troops than Bush, the escalating war has come with a bloated price tag. So far, we have spent $336 billion on the war, and if Congress approves a request for additional funding, that number will go up to $455.4 billion – nearly half a trillion dollars. According to CostofWar.com, just the $120 billion in additional funding could fund 1.6 million elementary school teachers for a year, 1.9 million firefighters for a year, or $5,550 Pell Grants for 19.3 million students. A single month’s expenses on the Afghanistan war could pay for 46.9 billion meals for the hungry each month. Six months’ worth of Afghanistan war expenses could pay for school supplies for every single child in the world.

In addition to its financial price, the Afghanistan war is costing real human lives. Over the course of the entire war, at least 1,400 U.S. troops have been killed and over 10,000 wounded. The rate of deaths is also increasing, as more than a third of the total troops killed (499) died just during the past year. The price paid by ordinary Afghans is even greater. Not counting so-called insurgents, at least 2,412 civilians were killed and 3,803 were wounded in just the first 10 months of last year – these are most likely conservative estimates. The rate of Afghan civilian deaths is up 20 percent compared to the year before, directly corresponding to the increased troop levels under President Obama. In fact, over the course of the war, U.S.-led military actions have resulted in more direct civilian deaths (5,791 - 9,060) than “insurgent”-led actions (4,949 - 6,499).

Meanwhile, the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan has no more legitimacy than Egypt’s embattled Mubarak regime. The 2009 elections in which President Hamid Karzai claimed victory were condemned internationally as fraudulent. Released documents showed that 100% of votes from dozens of polling places in provinces like Kandahar were for Karzai. Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission received thousands of complaints of fraud. Journalists easily purchased voter registration cards on the black market. Despite documentary evidence of criminal activity implicating top government officials and Karzai himself, the U.S. continues to legitimize the central government as the only alternative to the Taliban. There is also little criticism beyond vague assertions of “corruption” of members of the Afghan Parliament. Many Afghan MPs have a history of bloody war crimes, particularly during the post-Soviet era of the early 1990’s when tens of thousands of civilians were maimed, raped, and killed often with U.S.-supplied weapons. Today, those same men, considered the Taliban’s ideological brethren, control private militias, suck up millions of dollars of aid for their private gain, terrorize civilians, and are neck-deep in the drug trade.

It is no wonder then that leading Afghan activist and former Member of Parliament, Malalai Joya, wants the U.S. and NATO out of her country. Having come face-to-face with the brutality of war and the power that U.S.-backed war criminals wield, Joya has been demanding an end to the occupation for years. In her book, A Woman Among Warlords, just out in paperback, Joya explains the situation of ordinary Afghans: “[w]e are caught between two enemies – the Taliban on one side and the U.S./NATO forces and their warlord allies on the other.” She goes on to say that “for our people, Obama is a warmonger, like Bush. He follows the same disastrous policies, only with much more determination and force.”

Joya is the most outspoken Afghan to have been elected to Afghanistan’s Parliament. She is beloved by her people for daring to speak out against U.S.-backed war criminals that dominate the government and is targeted by those very warlords. In fact, Joya has survived at least 4 assassination attempts. She represents a majority of Afghans that want neither a foreign occupation with its fundamentalist lackeys in government nor their enemies the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Despite this, her opinions are rarely reflected in U.S. media.

By most accounts, violence is increasing. According to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO), attacks in Helmand and Kandahar rose by 124% and 20% last year compared to 2009. Furthermore, the violence has now spread to parts of the previously more peaceful North and East, but the U.S. military and its spokespeople continue to cast their failures as successes. For example, in a recent letter to U.S. troops, General David Petraeus said, “Throughout the past year, you and our Afghan partners worked together to halt a downward security spiral in much of the country and to reverse it in some areas of great importance.” He went on to cite specific progress in the Afghan capital Kabul as well as the traditional Taliban strongholds of the Helmand and Kandahar provinces, ignoring the fact that the number of attacks there are increasing. The ANSO, which provides security advice for organizations operating on the ground in Afghanistan, said in its quarterly report, “No matter how authoritative the source of any such claim [of progress], messages of this nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion.” As Malalai Joya says in her book, “It is all a lie – dust in the eyes of the world.”

Like Malalai Joya, most Afghans are painfully aware of the war’s spiral into violence and mayhem: a November 2010 survey by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research found that favorable opinions of the U.S. have hit an all-time low of 43% among Afghans. More than twice as many Afghans now blame the U.S. and NATO for violence compared to a year ago. Afghans are also less optimistic about the availability of jobs and economic opportunities, freedom of movement, and the rights of women compared to a year earlier. Americans share the Afghan opinion that the troops should leave. A CNN Opinion Research poll last December found that 63% now oppose the war.

In the last chapter of her book, Joya details her recommendations on how the world can really help Afghans, the first of which is to the end the U.S.-NATO war. She also explains the real humanitarian needs of the Afghan people that the international community could fulfill, and how this would have to go hand-in-hand with disarmament, especially of the warlords that have enjoyed foreign support for so long. Finally, Joya ardently demands all foreign troops to withdraw from her country, making a strong case for how any outbreak of civil war could be minimized through responsible international diplomacy.

According to Joya, “the truth about Afghanistan has been hidden behind a smoke screen of words and images carefully crafted by the United States and its NATO allies and repeated without question by the Western media.” Joya will speak directly to American audiences this spring in a nationwide tour intended to expose the brutality and futility of the war and clear the smoke screen. Her speaking tour comes ahead of a major push by antiwar activists to organize bi-coastal events protesting the Afghanistan war on April 9th and 10th 2011. Starting in mid-March, Joya will begin her tour in New York. From there, she heads to New Jersey, Washington D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington state, and California. Joya’s tour will culminate with her participation in San Francisco’s April 10th Antiwar Demonstration. Details of Malalai Joya’s Spring 2011 tour are online at www.afghanwomensmission.org.

Joya’s words can help Americans clear the “dust from our eyes” and face the reality that for all our sakes, the Afghanistan war must end sooner rather than later.

The Evil Zionist agenda

.
.
.
.
I suppose when you are focused on how to make a fast buck from the Afghan opium, and then you go on to flood the stuff in your own country, in Europe and Russia using the facilities of your MILITARY, then the last thing on your mind is the Afghan people........30 years of Zionist globalist mischief in Afghanistan using the services of the Chamar Chamacha Chaudi Coolie ISI/Pakistan military, has brought the good honest Afghan people nothing but utter misery, where upon "bad" Afghans of criminal disposition have been elevated, and good Afghans marginalized or killed, either by the USA, or by the Taliban...or by the ISI in Abdul Haq's case.

Its not that these Jews can't do better in terms of serving the Afghan people, a nation once existing in medieval isolated bliss bothering nobody, but they won't........for their "INTELLECTUAL ELITE" in the words of Rockefeller means the Afghan people must continue to suffer under continued American occupation and intrusion under the guiding light of the Jewish Globalist agenda.

“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” Rockefeller, 1991

If this is what International Jewish/Zionist Banker globalist Utopia looks like (In Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in reality...run by Jewish banker puppet governments, as with the former Soviet Union)............. then give me petty alert guarded fervent regional nationalism every and any day.

_________________________

Hunger and Anger in Afghanistan

by Kathy Kelly at antiwar.com

The Obama administration has announced the imminent release of a December Review which will evaluate the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. The military has yet to disclose what the specific categories for evaluation will be. Yet many people in Afghanistan might wish that hunger along with their anger over attacks against civilians could top the list.

In Afghanistan, a nation where 850 children die every day, about a quarter of the population goes hungry. The UN says that 7.4 million Afghans live with hunger and fear of starvation, while millions more rely on food help, and one in five children die before the age of five.

"Do you think we like to live this way?" an Afghan man asked me, last October, as he led us toward a primitive tent encampment on the outskirts of Kabul. "Do you see how we live? The cold and the rain are coming. How will we protect our children?" He flicked his forefinger on a weather-beaten blanket covering a tent. The blanket immediately ripped.

Standing next to him was a man who quietly handed me three crumpled photos, never lifting his eyes from the ground. The spokesperson identified the man as his cousin. The first picture showed his cousin’s ruined home. A U.S. aerial bombardment had destroyed the dwelling. The next pictures were of two bloodied children. "All of his children were killed," the spokesperson said. "All his family, his wife, his five children, by an attack from the air." He went on to explain that they had been goat herders in the San Gin province of Afghanistan. They were happy with their lives, selling yoghurt and fattening their animals. A Taliban fighter had come to their village at night. The U.S. apparently wanted to kill this fighter, but instead they destroyed his cousin’s family. "We couldn’t stay there," the spokesperson said, pointing to a picture of the debris that was once his cousin’s home. "We were afraid we might be hit again, so all of us left. We are four families."

Inside one of the tents, a young mother welcomed me to sit down on the only available cushion. It appeared that they slept on the ground. The families share one pot over a fire pit, and a few utensils. They also have access to a water pump. Near their area is a tent where they join for prayers, and also one that is used for classes. One man begged us to tell the authorities that they have no medicines in the camp and that many of the children are ill.

Days earlier, in a far more comfortable setting, students at the Bamiyan University, located in the central, mountainous province of Bamiyan, had prodded us to comprehend their anger. In a straw poll, several dozen were unanimous in stating that they want the U.S. to leave their country. Several insisted that most U.S. people don’t understand or care about the impact of U.S. warfare in Afghanistan. An engineering student held up a copy of the Time magazine cover which showed a young Afghan woman whose nose was horribly mutilated, allegedly as punishment for defying men in her family. Time‘s accompanying headline announced that the story would explain why U.S. troops must remain in Afghanistan. "Do Americans care more about noses than fingers?" the student asked. "Who will cover the stories about fingers that are cut off?!" I felt embarrassed not to know what he was talking about. Several weeks later, I read a New York Times article about a trial taking place at an army base in Washington State. The article shed light on the student’s question. A U.S. Staff Sergeant from the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was charged with leading a conspiracy to randomly target and kill unarmed Afghan civilians. He and four other soldiers faced murder charges. The staff sergeant is alleged to have planted evidence to cover up the murders and to have carved fingers off corpses which he kept as war souvenirs.

Although the U.S. military forbids soldiers to mutilate corpses and go on killing sprees that target civilians, the U.S. occupying forces in Afghanistan have bragged, in recent weeks, about increased capacities to kill with ever more invulnerable weapons. A company of 16 Abrams tanks was recently delivered to Afghanistan. "We’ve taken the gloves off," said an unnamed U.S. military official, "and it has had huge impact." (Washington Post, November 19, 2010) The 68-ton tanks fire high explosive, white phosphorus and anti-personnel shells that can destroy a house a mile away. Each tank costs 4.3 million dollars and uses 3 gallons of jet fuel per mile.

The Pentagon is also sending 12,500 XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapons to Afghanistan, one to each infantry squad and Special Forces team in Afghanistan. The XM25 gun can fire a projectile that will travel the length of eight football fields. "When fired, the projectile is designed to explode directly above a target," says the Army Times, "raining shrapnel down on an enemy crouched behind cover."

In a report to the November 2010 NATO conference held in Lisbon, 29 aid groups working in Afghanistan warned that the increases in air attacks, the use of night raids, and the destruction of civilian property contributes to "rapidly deteriorating" security for most Afghans and a rise in civilian casualties. People who flee from U.S. attacks face food insecurity, loss of income, lack of health care, and homelessness. The aid groups’ report is entitled "Nowhere to Turn." Increasingly, Afghans living in war zones have nowhere to hide.

Commenting on impoverishment and displacement caused by military offensives, a Pakistani op-ed recently compared hunger and anger to two live wires. When the wires touch, they create an incandescent and uncontrollable flash.

It’s hard to imagine the extent of explosive popular rage that would result if the shoe were on the other foot, if U.S. people were subject to aerial bombing, night raids, destruction of civilian homes, displacement and starvation. In reality, the live wires of hunger and anger could exist in our lives too; we could be angry, very angry, about this war, angry enough to make it a political issue. But if our hunger were for an end to the war, if our hunger even signaled a desire to rethink and repent our murderous policies, if we honestly sought forgiveness from Afghan civilians who’ve borne the brunt of our war of choice, then perhaps an uncontrollable and incandescent flash of fairness and peace could govern our future.

American installed puppet Karzai, paid, owned and guarded by America looking for true Afghan independence: is he dreaming?

.
.
.
.

Obviously the American occupation of Afghanistan is harming the country, and I imagine most Afghans are quietly muttering and wondering when the Americans with their NATO servants will leave Afghanistan so that Afghans can finally enjoy peace and stability, after 30 years of American instituted invasions by the Soviets (Brzezinski's July 1979 Bear Trap);

Funding hardline Islamic fundamentalists Mujaheddin with peculiar attitude in the 1980's,

To the inevitable civil war between such funded groups after the Soviets withdrew 1991---1994,

to the creation of the Taliban via Pakistan when Sandy Berger Clinton's security advisor visited Islamabad in 1994.......

To the mythical "al-Qaeda" creation in Afghanistan by the USA from 1996..........

Then the American invasion in 2001, and finally now the creation of the Afghan national security forces with a very heavy Tajik bias (Tajiks make up 25% of Afghanistan's population and have never been the dominant group) The dominant group in Afghanistan are the Pashtun's, variously estimated at 40--60% of the population. This has been so for a 1000 years.

If you are a colonial power with bad intentions you subvert the traditional power structure, and promote minorities at the expense of the majority........what that does is it guarantees future conflict within the country. The very poor performance and behavior of the Tajik heavy Afghan security forces against Pashtun civilians also does not bode well for national reconciliation.

Even the American puppet Karzai, who is a weak character (tendency to cry when foreign officials shout at him) UNDERSTANDS that the American occupation of his country is not good, so he scuttles around looking for alternative alliances.......this is pathetic; mere show.

The problem is that Karzai has no real power, surrounded by reliable friends.......so he must resort to diplomatic theatrics and OTT rhetoric.

The Pakistanis are unreliable partners deeply committed to the Taliban cause come what may, who one imagines most sensible Afghans don't want back, and rightly so. The Pakistani military coolie chaudis have however turned Mir Jafar on their own trained and groomed Taliban due to recent American pressure, possibly to scotch any reconciliation talks between the Afghan Taliban and Kabul government which leaves Islamabad dry (cynical and nasty).......so on such a slippery moral plain how do ANY AFGHANS work closely with the coolie chaudi chamars in Islamabad chasing after the $ forever, looking out for an opportunistic angle.

Pakistan is a poor ally even for a neighboring "cousin" state.

So on to Tehran where the mullahs have shown more commitment to their allies that does not sway with the seasonal wind. Iran since 1982 has shown consistent commitment to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrian government run by Alevis (Shia) which dominate the Sunni majority of Syria. However Iran isn't going to do a lot to upset the apple cart of Afghanistan run by the American narco mafia. Iran since the 1990's backed the Northern Alliance, and can't be overly unhappy at their dominant position in Afghanistan NOW.

Conversely Iran hates the Afghan Taliban which also butchered Iranian diplomats and their families in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998, which led to Iran mobilising 250,000 troops on the Western Afghan border, and the mullahs calling the Taliban "fossilised dinosaurs". Since 2001 Iran has been cooperative with the USA's occupation of Afghanistan. Persians are known for their hospitality, but beyond showing the red carpet to Karzai I can't see the mullahs seriously under mining USA Mafia occupation of Afghanistan, unless the USA threatens Iran militarily.......in which case expect Iran visibly and clearly, beyond heresay, supplying the Taliban with heavy equipment such as light SAM's, ATGW, heavy mortars....and the Northern Alliance turning against the Americans.......and the Persian section of Afghan society concentrated around Herat taking up arms against the occupation forces seriously.

So on to China.

Its is very logical that a neighbor of China should cultivate excellent relations with the largest industrial power in the world, with the second largest economy and greatest exporting nation. China's star is on the rise, and with it its sensible investments around the world to secure the resources for its vast industry, which is still growing. Afghanistan would do well to cooperate with China in the resources field where Afghanistan can offer its gas fields, its vast copper reserves and all the other minerals.

Whilst the American narco mafia emphasises Opium cultivation to solve Afghanistan's economic problems, Chinese investments in real acceptable investments areas will have long term benefits for Afghanistan, which slowly weens Afghanistan away from the destructive effects of Opium cultivation which is the sole national "industry" at present, with impressive growth levels since the Mafia occupation. Additionally as with Africa and else where the Chinese are very effective builders of infrastructure in especially Third World nations.......good structures, built effectively at low cost.

The Chinese must be aware, as the article below clearly indicates, that Afghanistan may be a mere spring board........for future, further military adventures by the USA in Central Asia and China, hinted at in the strategic documents, "Project for A New American Century" 2000, and the policy paper of Brzezinski, "The Grand Chess board" 1997. These American strategic objectives which are very real, given their hostile presence in Afghanistan for permanent war, must concern and affect China directly.

On the other hand Karzai is a weak man and an installed puppet of America who has 100,000 troops in his country fighting his people backed by 180,000 private contractors and, so he can't significantly change Afghanistan's relationship with other countries, especially with Iran and China, even if he wanted to.

Mafia narco America's star is on the decline...........this is fortold. Its actions, it rhetoric and its state policies both domestic and foreign indicate this. The question is how long the poor Afghans must wait for the Americans to wear themselves out and leave Afghanistan for good.

____________________________

Karzai's China-Iran dalliance riles Obama

By M K Bhadrakumar in Asia Times 30/03/2010.

Great moments in diplomatic timing are hard to distinguish when the practitioners are inscrutable entities. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visits to China and Iran within the week rang alarm bells in Washington which were heard in the Oval Office of the White House.

Karzai's two days of talks in Beijing last week were scheduled exactly at the same time as the high-profile strategic dialogue taking place between the United States and Pakistan in Washington.

Karzai has coolly defied the President Barack Obama's do-or-die diplomatic campaign to "isolate" Iran in the region - not once but twice during the past fortnight. Karzai earlier received his Iranian counterpart, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, with manifest warmth in Kabul while the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was on a visit to Afghanistan.

Washington lost no time signaling its displeasure. Obama flew into Kabul on Sunday unannounced for an "on the ground update" from Karzai.

US national security advisor James Jones told the White House press party that Obama hoped to help Karzai understand that "in this second term there are things he has to do as the president of his country to battle the things that have not been paid attention to almost since day one".

Jones's unusually sharp comment bears out the New York Times report from Kabul that Obama "personally delivered pointed criticism" to the Afghan president that "reflected growing vexation" with him.

The newspaper commented:

Mr Obama's visit to Afghanistan came against a backdrop of tension between Mr Karzai and the Americans. It quoted a European diplomat in Kabul as saying, "He's [Karzai] slipping away from the West" and it went on to point out that the Afghan president "warmly received one of America's most vocal adversaries" in Kabul and then "met with him again this past weekend in Tehran", apart from visiting China, "a country that is making economic investments in Afghanistan, ... taking advantage of the hard-won and expensive security efforts of the US and other Western nations."

It seems Karzai had barely got back to Kabul from Tehran when the US Air Force One carrying Obama landed in Bagram air base north of the Afghan capital. Obama has since asked Karzai to go over to Washington on May 12.

Spring is in the air Clearly, the Americans are furious that Karzai is steadily disengaging from the US's grip and seeking friendship with China and Iran. Pretences of cordiality are withering away even as Washington realizes that the ground beneath its feet is shifting.

Curiously, two days after his return to Kabul from Beijing on Thursday, Karzai flew to Tehran to celebrate Nowruz festival. By celebrating the advent of spring at an extraordinary conclave of Persian-speaking regional countries in Tehran, Karzai drew attention to Afghanistan's multiple identity as a plural society of pre-Islamic antiquity.

But in political terms, he ostentatiously displayed his freedom from American control. His itinerary in Tehran included a meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

If Karzai's Iran diplomacy was rich in political symbolism, his state visit to China was politically substantive. Karzai was accompanied by the Afghan ministers of foreign affairs and defense. China's Xinhua news agency reported from Beijing that Karzai's upcoming visit "has drawn wide attention at a time when major powers are speculating whether China would engage deeper in efforts to rebuild - and possibly offer military assistance to - the war-torn country."

Xinhua scotched speculation regarding any role for China in the war:

Since early 2008, Afghan officials, as well as the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] troops, have repeatedly asked China to open the border on the east end of the Vakhan corridor to help them fight terrorists in the country. China has rejected the appeal, refusing to be sucked into a war on terror. ... Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said earlier this month that military means would not offer a fundamental solution to the Afghan issue.

Zhang Xiaodong, deputy head of the Chinese Association for Middle East Studies, was quoted as saying, "China definitely will not participate in the country's internal affairs under the NATO framework".

Zhang challenged the call last month by NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen to reinforce the alliance's ties with Asian countries such as China, India and Pakistan as well as Russia, which would have a stake in Afghanistan's stability. Zhang said "unbalanced engagement by these [Asian] stakeholders" could lead only to more problems.

Zhang added: "Afghanistan should cut its reliance on the US. At the moment, Washington is deeply involved, and it makes other neighbors nervous. Karzai now hopes to seek more support from other big countries and find a diplomatic balance."

However, in a meeting with his Afghan counterpart, Abdul Rahim Wardak, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie pledged bilateral military cooperation. "Chinese military will continue assistance to the Afghan National Army to improve their capacity for safeguarding national sovereignty, territorial integrity and domestic stability," Liang said. He pointed out that the military cooperation is proceeding smoothly in the direction of military supply and personnel training and the Chinese assistance is "unconditional".

China Daily lambasts AfPak

On Wednesday, ahead of Karzai's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, the government-owned China Daily featured a devastating critique of the US's AfPak policy in an article titled "Afghanistan reflects US' self-obsession".
The commentary said:

It is clear that the US would like to maintain its influence over Afghanistan even after withdrawing its troops, no matter when that happens. Which means it would not allow regional powers such as China to play a greater role in Afghan affairs. Instead, what the US is willing to share with countries like China is the burden of economic reconstruction.

The commentary harped on differences in the "basic stances" of China and the US. First, the US has adopted a differentiated approach toward terrorism insofar as its focus is on preventing Taliban or al-Qaeda from threatening its homeland security or US's facilities and personnel. On the contrary, "China, as Afghanistan's neighbor, also needs to tackle non-traditional security threats such as drug trafficking, arms smuggling and other cross-border crimes," China Daily said.

Second, the US's "consolidation" of its military presence in Central and South Asia" on the pretext of the Afghan war "put extra pressure on China's defense and security interests".

Third, the US and Chinese economic interests clash. "America gets priority in project selection ... And its economic input is aimed at paying for its military operations," while Chinese enterprises face unfair competition in securing contracts and are vulnerable to security threats.

Fourth, the US is prescriptive and has been "trying to force its political model on the backward country. On the other hand, China believes the Afghans (of all ethic groups and political parties) should decide on what form of government they want based on their culture, tradition and domestic conditions."

Fifth, China Daily said the US and China are pursuing contradictory "geopolitical objectives". The US has an "offensive counterterrorism strategy in which Afghanistan is being used as a pawn to help it maintain its global dominance and contain its competitors. China, on the contrary, pursues a defensive national defense policy and wants to have good relations as neighbors of Afghanistan."

Looking ahead, the commentary said:

The chaos caused by the war in Afghanistan is threatening security in China's northwestern region. A weak government in Kabul could mean a poorly manned border, which in turn would facilitate drug trafficking and arms smuggling and allow "East Turkmenistan" separatists to seek shelter in Afghanistan after causing trouble in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

China should get more countries to come together to resolve the Afghan problem. ... The SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] could play a more active role because five of Afghanistan's six neighbors are its members or observers. ... But given the present situation in Afghanistan, an SCO-led reconciliation and reconstruction process is an unrealistic proposition. Hence at present it [China] could only provide help through multilateral channels.

A show of support for Karzai

On the eve of Karzai's departure for Beijing, he received a delegation from the opposition Hizb-i-Islami group headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Washington is ambivalent about Hekmatyar, but in the joint statement issued after Karzai's visit, Beijing expressed support for the reconciliation and reintegration process in Afghanistan and affirmed "respect for the Afghan people's choice of development road suited to their national conditions".

Ahmadinejad's consultations in Kabul, followed by Karzai's dash to Islamabad, and now his visits to Beijing and Tehran - the sudden spurt of high level exchanges suggest a pattern.

What should alarm Washington most is that the Chinese position on Afghan national reconciliation meshes with Karzai's political agenda and accords with Iran's overlapping concerns and interests.

The China-Afghan joint statement affirms Beijing's readiness to expand economic cooperation, trade and investment while upholding the principle of "respect for the Afghan people's choice of development road suited to their national conditions".

Washington will factor in that it is quite within China's financial capacity to reduce Karzai's dependence on Western largesse, in turn encouraging the Afghan leader to shake off the West's attempts to dominate him.

The US-government funded media speculated that during his stay in Beijing, Karzai might seek Chinese investment in Afghanistan's vast reserves of minerals such as the rich gas fields in the northwestern region bordering Turkmenistan, which is already connected by a pipeline to Xinjiang.

It cannot be lost on Washington that Beijing and Tehran share similar concerns on almost all core areas of the Afghan situation.

These include their perspectives regarding the US's "hidden agenda" in the Afghan war and therefore the urgency of stabilizing the Afghan situation, Washington's double standards in the fight against terrorism, the West's hegemonistic approach toward Afghanistan, the imperative need of "Afghanization" including an Afghan-led national reconciliation, and most important, the desirability of cooperation among like-minded countries in the region in the search for an Afghan settlement.

Conceivably, Beijing's worries over the critical security situation in Afghanistan and its commonality of interests with Tehran could well act as an additional factor hardening Beijing's stance apropos the Iran nuclear issue.

Equally, does the prospect of long-term strategic ties between the US and Pakistan worry China?

A senior advisor to the former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif wrote recently, "Strategic relations with the US may well impinge on other vital linkages. Two are critical. With the US determined to engineer a 'regime change' in Iran, what would its expectations be from Pakistan? Finally, can we [Islamabad] contemplate cooperating with the US in any initiative that could trouble our relations with China?"

For the present, the Chinese commentaries seem to take a detached view. They tend to view the US-Pakistan long-term strategic partnership project as a pragmatic move on both sides - borne out of Washington's need to solicit Pakistani help to stabilize Afghanistan on the one hand and on the other hand Islamabad's need of US help to resuscitate its economy and to maintain a strategic balance vis-a-vis India.

But Beijing cannot be oblivious of the underlying US regional strategy to frustrate China's efforts to gain access routes to the Persian Gulf region via Central Asia bypassing the Malacca Strait, which is effectively under American control. The US strategy cannot work unless Pakistan falls in line.

Beijing's (and Tehran's) show of support for Karzai comes at a time when his relations with the US and Pakistan are somewhat rocky, to say the least.

_____________________________

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.