US/NATO arming Afghanistan & Pakistan to the teeth

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Postby Gouda » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:17 pm

the_last_name_left wrote:
Yet here you are showing how USA is paying hard cash to Pakistan to attack AQ.

Not sure how you see that. Most of the thread is about arming Afghanistan to "fight the Taliban" and the various overt and covert discussions and deals with the Taliban. Regarding Afghanistan, not everyone in the USG or NATO seems to be on the same page; and regarding Pakistan, some of the reporting herein shows that the USG has not been all too interested in what Pakistan is doing with the billions in allowance they get. An article posted above says this:
In fact, however, a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf's government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. He needs only promise in a secret annual meeting that he'll use it to invest in the Pakistani people.

This has little to do with al Qaeda any more. I think this thread is more focused on examining the buildup of a greater conflict within and/or between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

the_last_name_left wrote:
the info you post appears to validate the idea AQ is treated as a real threat by USA - which tends to contradict the idea of AQ being a CIA asset, 911 being an "inside job" etc?

Again, there's not much to do with AQ in this thread. It's more about the Taliban and Warlords and the Afghan army on the surface, and likely control of the drugs and arms markets under the surface, among other things. You can bet everyone is involved in that.

To address your point: no contradiction. Why can't elements of an enormous USG consider AQ a real threat while at the same time elements of AQ are operating as CIA assets? Are we to assume that the right hand of the USA always knows what the left is doing, or that the public narrative is accurately reflecting the truth on the ground? Furthermore, can't members of the CIA and AQ operate both as mutual assets and mutual enemies? Add to this the Pentagon's multitude of intelligence agencies, the murky world of private security forces and intelligence units, non-US intelligence services, and you've got a recipe for tension, competition, betrayals, set ups and... chaos - which requires "arming Afghanistan and Pakistan to the teeth" to sort it out. I don't think we should assume that we are looking at monolithic teams who are all on the same page, committed to one side or the other. I think this is probably a fluid and complicated situation. These things can't be tied up neatly and I hope this thread is not giving the impression that they can be.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby the_last_name_left » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:40 pm

gouda wrote:To address your point: no contradiction. Why can't elements of an enormous USG consider AQ a real threat while at the same time elements of AQ are operating as CIA assets? Are we to assume that the right hand of the USA always knows what the left is doing, or that the public narrative is accurately reflecting the truth on the ground? Furthermore, can't members of the CIA and AQ operate both as mutual assets and mutual enemies? Add to this the Pentagon's multitude of intelligence agencies, the murky world of private security forces and intelligence units, non-US intelligence services, and you've got a recipe for tension, competition, betrayals, set ups and... chaos - which requires "arming Afghanistan and Pakistan to the teeth" to sort it out. I don't think we should assume that we are looking at monolithic teams who are all on the same page, committed to one side or the other. I think this is probably a fluid and complicated situation. These things can't be tied up neatly and I hope this thread is not giving the impression that they can be.


No, fair enough, and thanks for your explanation.

gouda wrote:
the_last_name_left wrote:Quote:
Yet here you are showing how USA is paying hard cash to Pakistan to attack AQ.


Not sure how you see that.


because, amongst other things, in an earlier post you quoted a report saying:

gouda wrote:WASHINGTON, May 19 — The United States is continuing to make large payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls reimbursements to the country’s military for conducting counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.

The monthly payments, called coalition support funds, are not widely advertised. Buried in public budget numbers, the payments are intended to reimburse Pakistan’s military for the cost of the operations. So far, Pakistan has received more than $5.6 billion under the program over five years, more than half of the total aid the United States has sent to the country since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, not counting covert funds.
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 580#116580


gouda wrote:Regarding Afghanistan, not everyone in the USG or NATO seems to be on the same page


Thanks for clarifying :)

Sorry - don't mean to derail your thread :)
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:26 am

the_last_name_left insists:
you are showing how USA is paying hard cash to Pakistan to attack AQ.

But they are not attacking AQ, and the cash the US sends is unaccounted for. You'd think if the USG really wanted Pakistan to attack AQ, they'd demand an accounting of cost and results. You'd think that based on the poor results, they'd cut the funding. But no.

The key points in the post you cite and the other I posted above are:

1. Funds sent to Pakistan from the US have been in untraceable cash transfers with little or no oversight:
In fact, however, a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf's government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants.

“They send us a bill, and we just pay it,” said a senior military official who has dealt extensively with General Musharraf. “Nobody can really explain what we are getting for this money or even where it’s going.”


2. The USG is sending money to Pakistan so that they ebb their patrols?
...even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.

Which has led to an INCREASE in AQ/Taliban activity.

So we see that the US has been sending billions to Pakistan ostensibly to fight AQ/Taliban on the border, yet everyone admits accounting for this money is not taken seriously and the result has been an increase in AQ/Taliban activity. Thus, I don't think we can definitely conclude that there is a unified 'western' intention to smoke out and kill 'Al Qaeda', however they might be defined now. It seems to me this war is having the opposite effect, consistent with decades of US foreign policy and intervention which has always exacerbated and multiplied any latent, nascent or localized terrorist threats -- coinciding, remarkably, with a re-booting of the drug trade. Intentionally or not...hmmm. Probably a little of both, depending on the agency.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:55 am

All the Gang's there...

Karzai to brief PM on secret Taliban talks
President of Afghanistan to visit London as efforts are made to end conflict

November 13, 2008

http://license.icopyright.net/user/view ... k3OQ%3D%3D

The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, will today brief Gordon Brown on talks being held with the Taliban with the aim of ending the conflict in his country, The Independent has learnt.

(...)

One of the meetings hosted by King Abdullah took place in Mecca in September and is said to have included Mr Karzai's brother Qayum, Mullah Mohammad Tayeb Agha, the former spokesman for the Taliban leader Mullah Omar, the former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, and the ex- Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif, who has contacts with the insurgents.

The Independent has also learnt that Mr Karzai's government held secret talks with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former mujahedin leader now labelled a terrorist by American and Britain, through members of his family who regularly visit Kabul. As a mujahedin commander against the Russians, Mr Hekmatyar was supported by the CIA and Pakistan. In the civil war which followed the Soviet withdrawal, he continued to be backed by the Americans and Pakistanis despite being blamed for atrocities. The warlord later fell out with the Americans and based himself in Iran, from where he directed attacks on Nato in Afghanistan.

(...)

The US has also changed its position on talking to the Taliban.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:04 pm

US Intelligence Chief Hayden indicating that the next attack on the USA will be traceable to Pakistan's tribal regions. AQ is planning operations from their "safe haven in Pakistan" says he (for the edification of Obama). Those safe havens somehow seem to bounce around, winding themselves up in line of the next US/NATO advance. They'll probably need Obama's multilateralist skills to marshal war-weary nations into Pakistan ... and out of their present economic Depressions.

Timesonline:
Barack Obama is warned to beware of a ‘huge threat’ from al-Qaeda - Security officials fear a ‘spectacular’ during the transition period

(...)

He said that the chief danger comes from remote areas in Pakistan that border Afghanistan.

“Today virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas. Whether it’s command and control, training, direction, money, capabilities, there is a connection to the Fata [Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas].”

General Hayden said that al-Qaeda remained a “determined, adaptive enemy” operating “from its safe haven in Pakistan”. He added: “If there is a major attack on this country it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda.”

He said that the border region remained the base of al-Qaeda’s leadership, which had developed a more durable structure and a deep reserve of skilled operatives. “AlQaeda, operating from its safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas, remains the most clear and present danger to the safety of the United States,” General Hayden said.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby the_last_name_left » Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:18 pm

But they are not attacking AQ, and the cash the US sends is unaccounted for.


not attacking AQ? Not at all? Not one single bullet? Not one single patrol? Nothing? ;)

You'd think if the USG really wanted Pakistan to attack AQ, they'd demand an accounting of cost and results. You'd think that based on the poor results, they'd cut the funding. But no.


Yes, agreed.

But what does "attack" mean? Must it necessarily mean overt militarism - must it mean a highly visible "crackdown"?

1. Funds sent to Pakistan from the US have been in untraceable cash transfers with little or no oversight:


So we don't know what it is really being spent on? Your point is that it isn't being visibly spent "fighting AQ"? But if "attacking AQ/Taleban" doesn't require highly visible and noisy effects......then we shouldn't expect much evidence of it?

And what is Pakistan state-accounting like in general? I don't know, but I'm sure we can find all sorts of stories about Pakistan state-accountancy being in a dreadful state. I imagine all aspects of Pakistan reflect the same - I'm sure it isn't peculiar to the anti-terror industry.

The USG is sending money to Pakistan so that they ebb their patrols?


There's more than one way to skin a cat?

So we see that the US has been sending billions to Pakistan ostensibly to fight AQ/Taliban on the border, yet everyone admits accounting for this money is not taken seriously and the result has been an increase in AQ/Taliban activity.


You're saying not militarily attacking AQ/Taliban has led to an increase in AQ/Taliban activity?

But "fighting" AQ/Taliban also leads to an increase in AQ/Taliban activity? That's one of the major criticisms of the WOT, and all violence, and intervention? You even point out that it's

consistent with decades of US foreign policy


SO military action and intervention as foreign policy stimulate terrorism, violence, upheaval?

but you're also saying that because Pakistan has reduced patrols then 'AQ/Taliban activity' has increased.

It seems you're suggesting AQ/Taliban activity appears to increase whether there's overt military action against them or not?

And yet you also suggest USA appears to purposefully intend to increase terrorism?

The USG is sending money to Pakistan so that they ebb their patrols?
....
Which has led to an INCREASE in AQ/Taliban activity.


Would patrols decrease AQ/Taliban activity?

It seems to me this war is having the opposite effect,


Quite. That's what the opponents always said it would do.

consistent with decades of US foreign policy.......always exacerbated and multiplied any latent, nascent or localized terrorist threats


So if pakistan wants to do what the USA is ostensibly paying for - "reduce AQ/Taliban" - presumably they could succeed best by "doing nothing"? Or at least not using overt violence?

And yet though Pakistan has reduced overt military action, still AQ and Taliban increase?

Clearly - it seems when they're fought - the taliban and AQ increase, and when they're left alone - they increase. Is that right? That seems to be a conclusion from what you're saying. But it's hard to conclude the USA is purposefully aiding AQ/Taliban on the grounds their actions 'increase AQ/Taliban' activity, when AQ/Taliban activity increases whatever they do?

---

I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

And don't feel I'm asking you to address all the questions :) I just ask them rhetorically, whatever.
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:22 am

SO military action and intervention as foreign policy stimulate terrorism, violence, upheaval?

Usually, that's how it goes. By US “intervention” I mean everything from outright shock and awe to economic warfare, coups, assassinations, subversion and the covert ops of funding and training the mujaheddin and other groups destined to become agents of blowback.

But you're also saying that because Pakistan has reduced patrols then 'AQ/Taliban activity' has increased.

That is what has been reported. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this or cause-effect in this case, but it does point out some uncomfortable inconsistencies in stated US policy in terms of cost-benefit. Unstated policy alters the equation.

You're saying not militarily attacking AQ/Taliban has led to an increase in AQ/Taliban activity?
(...)
It seems you're suggesting AQ/Taliban activity appears to increase whether there's overt military action against them or not?

I’m not really drawing any firm military or intelligence conclusions here; for one, I can’t. But it seems to me they are being attacked by some (US forces) and ignored by others (Pakistani forces). Other reports indicate elements on both sides are cooperating with them via arms and training, other deals etc.

Are AQ and the Taliban increasing or getting stronger from this? Well, that is what the official reports are stating, if they can be believed. It would seem to me that the influx of weapons and drug money into the area would tend to increase AQ & Taliban military activity. But are they all ‘genuine’ Taliban or AQ? I think this whole war puts a lot of non-extreme people into extreme situations where many have no choice but to join to defend their families and their villages from imperial aggression. This swells the ranks of fighters, but I’d bet most of the new recruits are not madrassa-indoctrinated extremists.

Whether reports of swelling “terrorist” ranks are empirically true or just propaganda, the results are the same: it justifies a US/NATO military and intelligence presence in the region, it justifies continued M-I Complex funding and resources, it justifies continued pressure on Pakistan and a possible invasion into Pakistan, and this all benefits the drug & weapons trade.

And yet you also suggest USA appears to purposefully intend to increase terrorism?

Yes, that would seem to be the case with the “War on Terror” which has its ugly parallel in the “War on Drugs” designed to keep drugs flowing, markets controlled and profits ensured.

Clearly - it seems when they're fought - the Taliban and AQ increase, and when they're left alone - they increase. Is that right? That seems to be a conclusion from what you're saying. But it's hard to conclude the USA is purposefully aiding AQ/Taliban on the grounds their actions 'increase AQ/Taliban' activity, when AQ/Taliban activity increases whatever they do?

It’s certainly a lose-lose situation from the standpoint of reducing or knocking out extremists or terrorism. It’s a win-win situation from the perspective of the Military-Intelligence-Mercenary-Energy complex, drug traffickers, terrorist groups and warlords, which do not necessarily represent conventional US interests or even foreign policy. Things definitely do seem out of the control of traditional state players and statesmen. But that's another discussion.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:43 am

Gouda wrote:
Whether reports of swelling “terrorist” ranks are empirically true or just propaganda, the results are the same: it justifies a US/NATO military and intelligence presence in the region, it justifies continued M-I Complex funding and resources, it justifies continued pressure on Pakistan and a possible invasion into Pakistan, and this all benefits the drug & weapons trade.

This example seems to support one element of that:
"Afghan article says US Bin-Ladin hunt phoney"

The USG Open Source Center translates an article from the Persian Afghan press alleging that French troops were at one point close to capturing Usamah Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, but that American forces stopped them from doing so. It says that a forthcoming French documentary containing interviews with the French soldiers provides proof for the allegation. The argument is that the Bush administration needed Bin Ladin to be at large in order to justify its military expansionism.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:59 am

My question is which Taliban rejected the offer, and which Taliban have the US, UK, NATO and the Afghan government already been talking with/working with even as the US, UK and NATO officially deny that they have ever had sex with that Taliban. -- Gouda


Afghanistan's Taliban Reject Offer for Peace Talks
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -voa03.htm

Taliban reject offer for talks
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=17892774

The Associated Press
Monday, November 17, 2008

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan: Taliban militants rejected an offer of peace talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, saying Monday there would be no negotiations until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Karzai offered Sunday to provide security for reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Omar if he enters negotiations and said the U.S. and other Western nations could leave Afghanistan or oust him if they disagree.
But Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said there could be no talks while foreign troops are in the country.

"The Taliban's (leadership) decided they will not take part in any peace talks with Karzai or Karzai's administration until such a day when foreign forces leave Afghanistan," Mujahid told The Associated Press.

"The Taliban will pursue jihad against foreign forces and (Karzai's) government." he said, speaking from an undisclosed location.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack questioned Karzai's security guarantee.

"One can't imagine the circumstances where you have the senior leadership of the Taliban — that there would be any safe passage with respect to U.S. forces. Certainly, it's hard to imagine those circumstances standing here right now," McCormack said.

The White House also made clear its distaste for the idea of talking with Taliban leaders right now, particularly Omar.

"We support Hamid Karzai. We think that he is a leader that has only the best interests of his country in mind. What we have seen from the Taliban, however, and from Mullah Omar — who we haven't heard from in some time — is an unwillingness to renounce violence," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

Karzai has dismissed the demand for foreign troops to leave, saying they are needed to keep Afghanistan safe.

The Afghan president has long supported drawing the Islamist militia into the political mainstream if they accept the country's constitution and repudiate al-Qaida. But his repeated offers to talk could also be aimed at portraying the insurgents as bent on violence instead of potentially legitimate rulers.

U.S. political and military leaders are also considering negotiating with some elements of the Taliban as the insurgency gains sway in large areas of Afghanistan, especially its south and east. Afghanistan is going through its worst violence since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion ousted the Taliban government.

In the past, no senior Taliban leader has publicly indicated the hard-line Islamist movement is willing to enter serious talks with what they call Karzai's "puppet government."

Mujahid said the peace overtures are a political ploy by Karzai ahead of next year's planned presidential elections.

"Why did he not ask for these negotiations seven years ago?" Mujahid said. "Now it is useless to ask for peace negotiations. It is just part of his election campaign."
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:06 am

Interesting that we are getting weekly news about solo, unilateral US incursions and bombings in Pakistan which are denounced by the Pakistani government, yet...


US military launches joint border operation with Pakistan
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_militar ... 82008.html

The US military has launched a coordinated operation with Pakistani forces to put pressure on insurgents on both sides of Afghanistan's wild eastern frontier, a US military commander said Tuesday.

Dubbed "Operation Lionheart," the operation takes cooperation between US, Afghan and Pakistani forces to "the next level" in terms of intelligence sharing and coordination, said Colonel John Spiszer.

"We are in coordination on a daily basis with the Frontier Corps," said Spiszer, who commands the 1st Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade.

The US military has long complained about the Pakistani military's failure to act against insurgent sanctuaries in its border tribal areas.

But Pakistan's Frontier Corps has been engaged over the past two months in fighting in Bajaur, which borders Afghanistan's Kunar province.


Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that the Pakistani operations in Bajaur have had a "significant impact."

Spiszer said his troops were working along the Kunar River valley and up into the mountain passes along the border to intercept and ambush insurgents trying to escape from Pakistani operations in its Bajaur Agency.

"What we have done is worked very hard to refocus our ISR assets, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance assets to do everything we can to identify transiting across the border," he said.

Spiszer, who has about 3,000 US troops in an area that encompasses four Afghan border provinces, said he did not have enough troops but would get more with the arrival of a brigade from the 10th Mountain Division early next year.

He hailed the cooperation developing between the United States and the Pakistan military as a major success.

"I wish I had more resources to devote to it. And we will have more over the coming months," he said in a teleconference from Afghanistan.


***

More bombs and funds on they way!
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:39 pm

last_name_left asked:
And yet you also suggest USA appears to purposefully intend to increase terrorism?


Gouda replied: Yes, that would seem to be the case with the “War on Terror” which has its ugly parallel in the “War on Drugs” designed to keep drugs flowing, markets controlled and profits ensured.


On re-reading this, I see some refinement to "...you also suggest USA appears to purposefully intend to increase terrorism?" in my response is needed:

First: “USA”. As I’ve said before, there are many competing and opposing branches of American power – while at the same time there is an overt, public face of US policy and a covert, behind-the-scenes reality. Pentagon, NATO, State, CIA, White House, Private contractors and lobbies – all agents of US power – are sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating, sometimes fucking each other over. Central media and PR must filter, polish and keep this mess on message: i.e. the “terror” narrative which pits good white western forces against the dark eastern forces of evil. Now, add non-US intelligence operations (state and private) – Israel, UK, Germany, France, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, etc… to the mix. Who are the real terrorists here?

Second: “increase terrorism”. What and who are we talking about? Are we talking about terrorism in general, as a global tactic? Are we talking about “terrorism”, the tactic, being used against US and NATO forces; “terrorism” which might otherwise be known as “insurgency” or defending your home from imperialist invaders? Are forces fighting US and NATO-backed armies true blue “terrorists’? Are we talking about al Qaeda only? I hope not, because U.S. and NATO forces and agents have been out-terrorizing everyone. And then there is the Taliban: I would say that the Taliban – jerks for sure, but terrorists? – are certainly gaining strength. So, is “terrorism” increasing in this area? I’d have to say NO in the cartoon AQ sense, and YES if we include U.S. and NATO forces, agents and elements into the equation. If terrorism equals chaos and destruction wrought by forces external to a country and inimical to its sovereignty, then yes, it is increasing there due to all symbiotic forces involved.

Third: on “purposefully intend”(ing) to increase terrorism. I think some elements of US/NATO forces have no problem with keeping a non-US/NATO terrorist threat alive (and preferably under observation, with as many agents in control as possible) so as to justify their presence, expansion and rights to foment their own terrorism. Like in the drug war, you have elements of governments interdicting and eradicating traffic; but you also have darker elements working in association with traffickers to keep the flow flowing and under a modicum of control. So, why send money to Pakistan when everyone knows it goes to the ISI which in turn assists the Taliban? And are the Taliban or local fighters to be considered real “terrorists”? It does not matter, really. US/NATO will need an enemy, whether it be a cartoon version of AQ or peasants with guns and IEDs fighting for sovereignty.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby the_last_name_left » Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:28 pm

Just an aside:

From one of the AP stories, above:

Karzai offered Sunday to provide security for reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Omar if he enters negotiations and said the U.S. and other Western nations could leave Afghanistan or oust him if they disagree.
But Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said there could be no talks while foreign troops are in the country.


That just smacked me in the face reading that - to see Karzai (and AP) actually acknowledging the true picture.

No wonder the Taliban refuse talks. Karzai looks like Petain?

And then AP continue with the Taliban spokesperson:

"The Taliban will pursue jihad against foreign forces and (Karzai's) government." he said, speaking from an undisclosed location.


(Karzai's) government? In brackets? What he likely actually said was "THEIR government" ie the foreign forces' government? Bush's occupation government? Surely?

If they'd said that they might have made it clearer and more understandable why the taliban would refuse to talk with marshall petain.....errr i mean karzai's government.......errr i mean Bush's occupation government.

[Just thought that was interesting, that's all.]
-------------------

gouda wrote:First: “USA”. As I’ve said before, there are many competing and opposing branches of American power – while at the same time there is an overt, public face of US policy and a covert, behind-the-scenes reality. Pentagon, NATO, State, CIA, White House, Private contractors and lobbies – all agents of US power – are sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating, sometimes fucking each other over. Central media and PR must filter, polish and keep this mess on message: i.e. the “terror” narrative which pits good white western forces against the dark eastern forces of evil. Now, add non-US intelligence operations (state and private) – Israel, UK, Germany, France, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, etc… to the mix. Who are the real terrorists here?


I agree. But, as you suggest yourself, "terror" is a definition of them and us - they're terrorists, we're freedom fighters. The nazis thought the resistance were terrorists. All that jazz. So what does it mean to ask "who are the real terrorists"?

So, is “terrorism” increasing in this area? I’d have to say NO in the cartoon AQ sense, and YES if we include U.S. and NATO forces, agents and elements into the equation. If terrorism equals chaos and destruction wrought by forces external to a country and inimical to its sovereignty, then yes, it is increasing there due to all symbiotic forces involved.


Ok. I don't have much doubt that there's a vicious circle of violence which is then used to justify continued occupation, provocation, aggression, etc. A lot of what USA has done in Iraq for example, makes me highly suspicious that USA deliberately provoked unrest as a means to justify continued occupation. In which case it hasn't been a disaster at all - but went largely according to plan. Not to say the USA is in total control of iraqi resistance by any means - but it must have some. Likewise various groups in afghan and Pakistan etc. I imagine. Extremely difficult - impossible?- to work it all out?

Third: on “purposefully intend”(ing) to increase terrorism. I think some elements of US/NATO forces have no problem with keeping a non-US/NATO terrorist threat alive (and preferably under observation, with as many agents in control as possible) so as to justify their presence, expansion and rights to foment their own terrorism. Like in the drug war, you have elements of governments interdicting and eradicating traffic; but you also have darker elements working in association with traffickers to keep the flow flowing and under a modicum of control. So, why send money to Pakistan when everyone knows it goes to the ISI which in turn assists the Taliban? And are the Taliban or local fighters to be considered real “terrorists”? It does not matter, really. US/NATO will need an enemy, whether it be a cartoon version of AQ or peasants with guns and IEDs fighting for sovereignty.


Yeah, I agree, i guess.

I do however think there is genuine resistance. And I do think "terrorism" exists - in the asymmetric sense of resistance, and that there's a strain of it from fundamentalist islam.

That's why it seems worrying to see the suggestion that whether "terrorism" is being directly and actively fought ruthlessly and militarily or not, it is nevertheless apparently increasing. In which case, it would seem reasonable to limit the degree of fault we can attribute to USA and her militarism and we all would do well to realise that "terrorism"/islamic fundamental militarism is on the rise, seemingly regardless of what the USA might do. ]it could turn into islamic state, i suppose[

So i don't think I much dispute anything you're saying. just trying to clarify it for myself, i guess - so thanks again for your responses. :)
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:17 am

it would seem reasonable to limit the degree of fault we can attribute to USA and her militarism and we all would do well to realise that "terrorism"/islamic fundamental militarism is on the rise, seemingly regardless of what the USA might do.

I would dispute this conclusion for the following quite obvious reasons:

1. On the overt side, and from a structuralist or political-economic critique, “the USA and her militarism” is directly responsible for not only arming the world with all its factions, it has invaded and occupied, both militarily and economically, particularly combustible theatres. Not surprisingly, this leads to well-armed anger, resentment and resistance. The form a resistance takes depends on the orientation of a particular group and the political, social, economic circumstances of the aggression as well as the particular spin information warriors decide to put on it. Is it terrorism? Resistance? War? In the Middle East, the US, NATO and Israel have been terrorizing everyone, so the Taliban, the mujahadeen, the Iraqi insurgents, and regular citizens have taken to terrorizing the US and NATO forces right back – which I guess is called “war”. Yes, that has increased. Meanwhile, who knows the true status of AQ or to what extent the lines blur between AQ, the Taliban, the ISI, the CIA, the DIA, special forces, narco warlords, yacht-based oligarchs, private security provocateurs, double and triple agents … which leads to #2:

2. On the covert side, and from parapolitical angle, it is a well-documented, established fact of history that imperial forces (US, UK, Israel, NATO, Russia) have actively engaged in funding, training, and helping to establish terror cells, groups, and death squads as well as engaging in the extremely effective technique of false flag terrorism. This direct action, not shockingly, has the direct effect of increasing war, sectarianism, fundamentalism, extremism and terrorist formations. In this climate, it is not surprising that terror cells form and/or morph: its a growth industry on both sides and it seems to be working for both sides. Some formations are likely aided by and well controlled by western intelligence, while others may be out of their scope. The effect is the same.

So on both counts, be it via the neoliberal overt state or the neofascist deep state, “the USA and her militarism” is responsible. Her greed and Machiavellian, supremacist mindset too, I might add.

I thus accuse the “West” of aiding, abetting, and perpetrating terrorism through “shock and awe,” predator drones dropping wedding gifts, the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus, torture prisons, death squad formation, strategies of tension, psychological operations and information warfare, warlord backing, drug-running, secret funding and arming of extremist groups, and fomenting general mayhem through invasion, occupation, and black ops. Besides, they’re bigger and more powerful, thus they get more blame.

The GWOT is terrorism. Outfits like AQ, whoever or whatever they are today, are an essential part of it. Whether we are talking about secret assets or not, they are an asset to each other. The violent extremist fundamentalists leading the GWOT as well as violent Islamic (or other) extremist fundamentalists, seem to have formed a symbiotic relationship. They need each other for survival and growth – via death, chaos and destruction. You simply can’t separate them. They both benefit from this arrangement: imperial powers get their profitable fascist global security lockdown; smaller-scale terrorists get to get their terror on while helping weaken any remaining democratic tendencies the “west” might have had. The fundamentalists on both sides thus resemble not enemies, but collaborators in taking the world further into an extreme place.

How might this trend be stopped or at least deprived of oxygen? Hmm.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby the_last_name_left » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:28 am

How might this trend be stopped or at least deprived of oxygen? Hmm.


I wouldn't dispute your summary above - but this question is what I was getting at, I think.

If disengagement isn't going to reduce "terrorism" - then there aren't a lot of options left. As loathe as I am to admit it - this seems to suggest Christopher Hitchens was "right", or at least not "completely wrong"? What do you think?
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:59 am

then there aren't a lot of options left...Christopher Hitchens

No, no options exist in the tiny, violent minds of the global elite - but if you put your ear to the ground, you may just discover a whole new world of options, alternatives, sensible suggestions. And until Hitchens gets his head back, the sodden bloke can't be taken seriously.

Anyway, here's a great option:

U.S. to send up to 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to The "War on Terror"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest