Afghans chant slogans as they protest the killing of civilians in a NATO night raid in Taloqan, Takhar province.

ON Thursday, hundreds of people in the Chawki district of Kunar province protested against a US-led NATO night attack that killed six civilians on Wednesday and also chanted slogans condemning foreign forces occupying the country in the center of the district, a provincial official said.

They were asking NATO to free Afghanistan.

Afghan parliamentarians also expressed outrage over the civilian deaths and demanded an immediate end to night raids that often kill more civilians than Taliban fighters.

A woman and a child were among the dead in the air and ground attack on Dewa Gul Vally, in the Chawki district, provincial governor Fazlullah Wahidi stated.

"The raid was not coordinated with us. Those killed were civilians, among them a woman and a child," Wahidi said, adding, "Now the people are demanding justice.”

The raid is said to have been part of the US kill-and-capture operations in Afghanistan. NATO has confirmed the attack, saying it is investigating the incident.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has set up a commission to probe into the civilian deaths in Kunar.

Thousands of civilians have been killed in US-led airstrikes and ground operations in various parts of Afghanistan  with Afghans growing increasingly outraged over the seemingly endless number of deadly assaults.

Moreover, the rising death toll for Afghan civilians as a result of NATO and US military operations in the country has also increased tension between the puppet President Karzai and his Western allies.

The United Nations has reported that the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan rose by 15 percent in the first half of 2011 to 1,462.

Agencies

While Pakistan is restructuring its foreign policy that had been tailor made to suit American interests only, the US is striving to normalize Pak-US relations but there will be no more business as usual. Process of peace with Pakistani Taliban should be given a push to end the self-destructive war on terror.

WHEN the US decided to invade Afghanistan and topple Taliban regime led by Mullah Omar since it had refused to hand over Bin Laden suspected of being involved in 9/11 attacks, all the neighbors of Afghanistan including near neighbors supported USA. Among the immediate neighbors, Pakistan was the only country which enjoyed cordial relations with Taliban but still decided to go along with the decision of the international community. Even Russia, China and Iran antagonistic towards USA didn’t raise any objection. The reason was that all the regional countries were averse to extremist policies pursued by Taliban regime. It’s Sharia based ideology had become a threat to the six Central Asian Muslim Republics ruled by secular leaders, Russia, China and Iran. Islamic movements in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Xingjiang had drawn inspiration from Afghan Jihad and Taliban movement.

Iran was averse to Sharia based ideology of Taliban since it posed a challenge to export of Shiaism in the region. At one stage, Iran had deployed its forces along eastern border and had threatened to attack but backed off when Mullah Omar warned that Iranian military would get stuck in the glue of Afghanistan. Like Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan provided airbases to USA. India was most affected since the Taliban had almost wiped out its influence in Afghanistan and was desperate to regain its lost influence and thus gain entry into mineral resources rich Central Asia.

While all the regional countries had welcomed the US military action in Afghanistan, except for Karzai regime and India, all other countries now want the US led forces to pack up and leave. At the same time, none other than Pakistan want the Taliban to regain power. Even the US which is desperately trying to convince the Taliban to sit and talk wants them to share power with Northern Alliance as junior partners. Pakistan is an exception since it has suffered so grievously at the hands of Northern Alliance heavy Kabul regime that it strongly feels that Afghanistan under Taliban would prove to be a much better neighbor. Pakistan under no circumstances can afford to have hostile eastern and western borders.

The Taliban also know that they are friendless and the only country which has some soft corner and human feelings for them is Pakistan and none else. Although Pakistan played a deleterious role by assisting the US to forcibly topple an elected government in Kabul in November 2001 and till late November this year it was providing logistic supply routes to NATO containers, yet the Taliban are somewhat malleable towards Pakistan. They understand that Pakistan had no choice but to comply with George W. Bush’s dictates. They also appreciate that people of Pakistan have suffered a great deal on account of war on terror and that great majority dislike USA and sympathize with the cause of Taliban. It is in the wake of these varying impressions that the Taliban distrust all but they may listen to Pakistan to talk and work out a negotiated political settlement. They know that Pakistan has hardly any friend among the stakeholders in Afghanistan and others that are trying to broker peace.

So far the Afghan Taliban were rejecting the US dictated three-point peace formula and insisted that all foreign forces must quit to allow the Afghans to decide their own future. The Taliban demand release of their five prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. Their representative was not invited to Istanbul and Bonn conferences because of which the meetings proved inconsequential. Taliban have now agreed to open their political office in Qatar which is seen by western officials as a step towards reaching a negotiated political settlement. Afghan government and Afghan High Peace Council have welcomed it and said they have no objection to the Taliban-US getting engaged in diplomatic parleys. The US which till recent considered both al-Qaeda and Taliban as foes has now amended its stance by asserting that Taliban is not its enemy. In its keenness to expedite the process of reconciliation and early settlement, it may agree to release the prisoners to make the Taliban soften their stance. Sensing a change in atmosphere, a delegation from Hikmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami met Karzai in Kabul.

The Taliban in Pakistan who have sworn allegiance to Mullah Omar as their supreme leader would stop hating Pak Army the day they are convinced that that it is not fighting America’s war for dollars. They admire the valor and determination of Army soldiers and grudgingly admit that they are tough opponents. They have also learnt to their surprise that both officers and jawans are God fearing Muslims. The stiff stance taken by the Army and ISI in the face of America’s belligerence has brought a slight change in their perception and attitude and they are actively thinking of coming to terms with the Army.

Maulvi Faqir, commander of Taliban chapter Bajaur who is now based in Kunar after he and his militants were shunted out from Bajaur by security forces in 2009 has expressed his willingness to negotiate on Pakistan’s terms. This offer was made in the wake of decision taken by the resolution of the two Houses of the Parliament that dialogue with Pakistani Taliban should be initiated and also after seeing that security forces had started defying the US. On the eve of New Year, Mullah Omar issued a leaflet in North Waziristan (NW) directing Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and other affiliated militant groups to stop their fight against Pak armed forces and refrain from killing innocent people in Pakistan. He urged them to forge unity for a single cause and to focus attention against ISAF in Afghanistan since the war was in a decisive stage.

He expressed his displeasure over suicide attacks, kidnapping for ransom which he said were un-Islamic practices. A five-member Shura comprising members from various groups including Hakimullah Mehsud’s TTP, Maulvi Nazir’s group in South Waziristan (SW), Hafiz Gul Bahadur’s group and Haqqani network in NW has been formed to ensure stoppage of un-Islamic practices and to punish the guilty in accordance with Sharia laws. Hakimullah who is finding it exceedingly difficult to keep his sub-commanders under his control after his ouster from SW, agreed not to target innocent civilians but said suicide bombings and fighting against security forces would continue. Jamaat-e-Islami chief Munawar Hassan has exhorted Gen Kayani to hold dialogue with Taliban particularly when the US was holding dialogue with Afghan Taliban. He and Maulana Fazlur Rahman pressed the government to stop toeing America’s line and strive to enhance Pakistan’s prestige. Imran Khan who is riding the crest of popular wave has promised to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state.

In 2010, violence was at its peak. 10,003 fatalities took place in that year. 2011 saw a decline in terror related incidents as well as in drone strikes and casualties which dropped to 7,107. Total of 2985 violent incidents of all sorts took place last year as compared to 3393 in 2010. FATA was the most affected area followed by Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). Fatality toll of 820 in KP in 2011 was the highest. 300 suicide attacks have occurred since 2004 and in this highest rate was in 2009. While the security forces remained committed in all the agencies of FATA and some parts of KP in 2011, their heaviest involvement against the militants was in Mohmand, Orakzai, Kurram and Khyber Agencies. All told, 144 attacks were launched in which 1016 militants were killed, 4219 arrested and 279 surrendered. 57 teenagers trained by Swat militants under Fazlullah to become potential suicide bombers have been rehabilitated by Mashal Institute opened by Army in Swat.

Politically motivated target killings in Karachi that had peaked in 2011 were brought under control in September after the intervention of Supreme Court and grant of police powers to Sindh Rangers at the behest of Gen Kayani. In Balochistan, the Frontier Corps has managed to keep the Baloch separatists on the run without launching any operation while the Army has kept itself aloof and is concentrating on development works in interior Balochistan including enrolment of Baloch youth in Army and converting Sui town into an educational city. Likewise, development works in war affected SW is going on under the direct supervision of Army. After inauguration of Wana Cadet College, another one will be launched in April this year in Spinkai Raghzai. Mohmand and Bajaur Agencies will also have cadet colleges.

Troublesome regions in Upper Orakzai and Central Kurram Agencies are being cleared of the presence of militants and substantial progress has been achieved. As a consequent to sustained efforts of security forces, incidents of terrorism in urban areas have almost ceased. Since the closure of NATO supply lines in reaction to Salala attack on 26 November, no drone strike has occurred. Visits of hard nose intrusive American officials have terminated and the people have not heard the nauseating do more demand for the last six weeks. While Pakistan is restructuring its foreign policy that had been tailor made to suit American interests only, the US is striving to normalize Pak-US relations but there will be no more business as usual. Process of peace with Pakistani Taliban should be given a push to end the self-destructive war on terror.

The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. Email:asifharoon7751@yahoo.com

WHILE the US military and NATO have off and on committed unfriendly and hostile acts against its ally Pakistan since 2006, attack on Salala on 26 November by NATO helicopters killing 24 soldiers and injuring 16 was by far the worst. It was a premeditated and well-calculated massacre meant to give a tough message to Pakistan to behave or face the music. The big question is why this gruesome attack was launched at a time when things are not going well for ISAF and Pakistan’s cooperation in the endgame of Afghanistan is vital. The attack didn’t occur at the spur of the moment but in my reckoning was the cumulative affect of unreasonable grouses which Washington has been gathering against Pakistan over the years. It will be worthwhile to recapitulate some of the major events of the yesteryears.

There is no denying the fact that the US made Pakistan its coalition partner in war on terror because of its motivated interests and not because of love of Pakistan. The US had ditched Pakistan in 1989 and had befriended India. Over the years, the gap between USA and Pakistan kept widening mainly because of influence of India and Israel. Differences further widened after Pakistan turned nuclear and military dictator took over. Indo-US-Israel nexus formed in mid 1990’s saw nuclear Pakistan with a strong conventional military power and fairly strong technological base a big danger to its future designs and had marked it as a target. With the active blessing of Washington, Indian and Israeli jets had on few occasions come close to destroying Kahuta plant.

Therefore to say that there was a sudden change of heart after 9/11 is absurd. Pakistan was never regarded a friend by USA and will never consider it in future as well. It has been hiring Pakistan to serve its short-term interests and rudely pushing it aside after its objectives were accomplished. A stage has been set for another boorish break-up. The only difference is that in all previous marriages of convenience, Pakistan was not the target; this time it is the target.

The Indo-US-Israeli nexus duly joined by UK and Germany had made up their minds to make judicious use of Afghan soil for denuclearizing and Balkanizing Pakistan and making it a satellite of India through covert means. Well-sounding phrases like ‘making amends for past mistakes; and ‘lasting relations’ were gimmicks to dupe Pakistan and after lulling the senses of its leadership and disabling the nukes, striking it from within at an opportune time. India also embarked upon similar strategy to befool Pakistani leaders that it would resolve all core issues including Kashmir. In reality, it wanted to make Pakistan forget about Kashmir and accept its hegemony. While our adversaries on the quiet kept weaving the web around Pakistan, our myopic leaders lured by aid flow kept praising them and calling them their sincere friends.

In its honeymoon with the US, Pakistanis got the first jolt when George W. Bush administration struck highly controversial Indo-US civilian nuclear deal in March 2006 and didn’t give the same to Pakistan. The US went out of the way to build India’s military power and its nuclear strength without caring for the regional military imbalance. Its visible tilt towards India became a cause of concern for Pakistan, particularly when the US ignored Pakistan’s defence needs and counter terror equipment and even made its aid conditional to its performance against terrorists.

The warmth in Pak-US military and intelligence agencies relations started getting diluted after Pakistan was blamed for the terrorist attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul in July 2008. The US tilt towards India was again seen in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks when Indian military became highly belligerent. Since Mumbai drama backfired, India’s design to put its Cold Start doctrine to test in Sindh and South of Sutlej couldn’t materialize. Indo-US objective of getting ISI declared as a rogue outfit and to declare Pakistan’s nuclear program as unsafe boomeranged.

The US became more demanding and aggressive in 2009 after Barack Obama replaced George Bush and formulated Pakistan focused Af-Pak policy. It was designed to make Durand Line redundant and to allow ISAF to operate inside FATA freely. On several occasions Obama hurled threats that the US forces would hit a target in FATA unilaterally whenever actionable intelligence came their way. When Gen Kayani put his foot down, Obama reacted by intensifying use of drones in FATA. He also demanded firmer action by Pak Army against the militants. ‘Do more mantra’ and vilification campaign against the Army, ISI and nuclear program gathered pace. Pakistan became the convenient target to fire upon by all and sundry. Governed by its policy of appeasement, Pakistan kept offering its second cheek to the domineering bully.

In 2010, some strains occurred in Pak-US military relations. The reason behind it was continuously deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. Two troop surges had failed to control the rising power of Taliban. Casualty rate of ISAF had increased substantially. Apart from reverses in Afghanistan, another worrying matter for schemers was that Pakistan Army’s image had shot up and it had disarrayed the TTP. The conspirators were extremely unhappy to see Pak Army successfully coming out of the well laid out ambushes in Swat and South Waziristan (SW). Separatist movement in Balochistan backed by foreign agencies was also going nowhere and its top leadership was in exile. Not knowing how to explain its failures, the US military in Afghanistan in conjunction with Karzai administration enhanced their trend of leveling unfounded and baseless allegations against Pakistan, its Army and ISI, and blamed them for whatever went wrong in Afghanistan. This unholy practice of blame-going is still continuing.

Failing to arrest the down slide in Afghanistan and to weaken Pak Army and Pakistan’s nuclear program, the US devised another scheme in the form of Kerry-Lugar aid bill, which was aimed at cutting Pak Army and ISI to size and allowing CIA network to reach up to our nuclear arsenal and missile sites. This move ran into snags because the Army smelt the rat and raised serious objections. When Pak Army couldn’t be ensnared in the laid out traps of Swat and SW, Pentagon and CIA hatched another plan to trap and defame Pak Army by pushing it into the cauldron of North Waziristan (NW). Gen Petraeus pronounced NW as the major cause of ISAF’s reverses in Afghanistan and claimed that bulk of terrorism was flowing into Afghanistan from NW. Successive postponement of planned operation in Kandahar was attributed to safe havens in NW. Desperate to bog down another Corps size force and thus drastically reduce Pak Army’s operational effectiveness, Pakistan was pressed to launch a major operation in NW similar to Rah-e-Rast and Rah-e-Nijat and eliminate safe havens of al-Qaeda and anti-US militants. Pakistan’s reluctance to open another front when Swat and SW had not been fully stabilized was not well received in Pentagon and in Langley, which had its effect on civilian power centres in Capitol Hill as well.

The dawn of 2011 further strained Pak-US relations when Raymond Davis was arrested on 27 January after he murdered two motorcyclists in Lahore and was put in Kot Lakhpat jail. Preliminary investigations revealed that pretending to be a diplomat, he was CIA contractor and in connivance with CIA Station Officer in Islamabad Jonathan Bank, he had been playing a major role in destabilizing Pakistan. Although he was released on 16 March after the US agreed to pay blood money to the next of kin of the deceased, the US feeling insulted never forgave Pakistan. It felt more offended when ISI started pushing out under cover agents of CIA and also monitoring the activities of US diplomats.

Gen Pasha during his meeting with CIA Director in Langley insisted that full details of CIA agents and the US Special Forces personnel based in Pakistan under different guises to be provided and repatriated at the earliest. When Panetta refused to oblige, Pasha had to abruptly call off the meeting and fly back, which further angered CIA. In retaliation, not only spate of drones increased, Operation ‘Get Geronimo’ was hatched to teach a lesson to ISI and Pak Army. Stealth assault in Abbottabad was launched on 2 May with multiple objectives, but the main purpose was to discredit the Army, ISI and PAF in the eyes of the public and getting rid of the two eyesores - Gen Kayani and Gen Pasha.

When the defenders of Pakistan - COAS and DGISI – survived the western-local media cum PML-N politicians’ debilitating onslaught and civil-military relations remained cordial, the US refused to reduce terms of engagement in war on terror and intelligence sharing in writing, turned down the calls to vacate Shamsi airbase and to terminate drone war as was envisaged in 14 May joint resolution of the parliament. Instead of attending to Pakistan’s concerns, the US played upon the theme that some elements within Pak Army and ISI had facilitated Bin Laden’s stay in Abbottabad. It then invented another story that Haqqani network (HN) based in NW was involved in cross border terrorism and its safe havens must be liquidated. HN was demonized and pressure on Pakistan was further stepped up. Pakistan’s continued refusal to mount an operation in NW, saying that with its hands already full, it could ill afford to activate a new battlefront became a major irritant.

Fearing that the US may block military and economic assistance to Pak Army, Gen Pasha undertook whirlwind tours of China and some Arab countries in May to solicit financial assistance. He availed the opportunity to apprise his hosts that ISI and Army had no knowledge of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad and that Pakistan was stabbed in the back by its ally. He received a favorable response from all quarters. To suggest that he had gone there to seek assistance of Arabs to topple the sitting government is ridiculous. Once GHQ decides to bring down the ruling regime, it will neither inform any other country nor would need external assistance. All the four Generals who forcibly grabbed power did so without outside assistance.

After series of attacks on US-NATO targets by Taliban in Eastern Afghanistan in July-September 2011 including attacks on US Embassy and NATO HQ on 13 September, which blew apart tall claims of US military that lot of progress had been made, the US military lost its cool when Burhanuddin Rabbani was murdered on 20 September. Admiral Mullen went crackers and started hitting the roof on 22 September. He didn’t mince his words in directly accusing ISI’s linkage with HN claiming that it was the ‘veritable arm’ of ISI. Demand for eliminating sanctuaries of HN in NW became vociferous but Pakistan continued to resist.

Revelation of memo directed against the very independence of Pakistan by Mansoor Ijaz on 22 October was yet another conspiracy to sever civil-military relations and to tempt Gen Kayani to launch a coup against the government. Mansoor is not a friend of Pakistan. Reportedly, he is connected with CIA, MI6 and RAW. He was the carrier of the memo but leaked the story five months and 12 days after it was drafted and handed over to Admiral Mullen. Memogate scandal has given rise to an assumption that President Zardari, our Ambassador in Washington Hussein Haqqani (now sacked) and our High Commissioner in London Wajidul Shams knew about the 2 May attack and when the operation failed to fetch the desired objectives, the memo was drafted at the behest of Zardari and delivered to Mullen through Jim Jones on 10 May.

While the purpose of USA was to inflict harm to Pakistan, it is a different matter that the memo affair came as a blessing in disguise. It helped in exposing America’s chosen man Haqqani and getting rid of him. His absence from Washington in the ongoing difficult days is acutely felt by his patrons in Washington. They are apprehensive that he might divulge many secrets shared between him and US leadership. Haqqani may prove to be more dangerous than Raymond Davis. Supreme Court is seized with the issue and hopefully it will extract the truth and bring the traitors to justice. Panicked by Supreme Court’s assertiveness, Federal government has taken an irrational stance that memogate scandal should be investigated by the Parliament and not by Supreme Court, not realizing that great majority of elected parliamentarians are corrupt and dishonest.

It was in the backdrop of utter failures of US military, NATO and Karazi regime in Afghanistan on the political, economic, social and military fronts and their repeated failures to earth Pakistan that provoked them to launch an unprovoked attack at Salala. It was an act of sheer frustration and desperation. This latest hostile act has boomeranged in a big way and has impelled our weak-willed leaders to take steps which they should have taken long time back to roll back the US blatant intrusions and making a mockery of Pakistan’s sovereignty. They have dared to take series of measures because the top leadership is caught up in memogate case and shield of NRO has been taken away by the Supreme Court. It is anyone’s guess whether the President recuperating from his stroke will return from Dubai or not. The ruling regime closely associated with USA is standing on a very slippery ground.

The writer is a retired Brig, author of several books and a defence analyst. Email: asifharoon7751@yahoo.com

In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

THE economic collapse that began in 2008, that was duly declared unpredictable and thoroughly unforeseen across the entire Western media, was, in fact, anything but. Indeed, the capitalist cycle of expansion and collapse has repeated itself so often, over hundreds of years, that its existence is openly accepted across the whole spectrum of economic thought, including in the mainstream – which refers to it, in deliberately understated terms, as the “business cycle”. Only those who profit from our ignorance of this dynamic – the billionaire profiteers and their paid stooges in media and government – try to deny it.

A slump occurs when “capacity outstrips demand” – that is to say, when people can no longer afford to buy all that is being produced. This is inevitable in a capitalist system, where productive capacity is privately owned, because the global working class as a whole are never paid enough to purchase all that they collectively produce. As a result, unsold goods begin to pile up, and production facilities – factories and the like – are closed down. People are thrown out of work as a result, their incomes decline, and the problem gets worse. This is exactly what we are seeing happen today.

In these circumstances, avenues for profitable investment dry up – the holders of capital can find nowhere safe to invest their money. For them, this is the crisis – not the unemployment, the famine, the poverty etc (which, after all, remain an endemic feature of the global capitalist economy even during the ‘boom times’, albeit on a somewhat reduced scale). The governments under their control – through ownership of the media, currency manipulation and control of the economy – must then set to work creating new profitable investment opportunities.

One way they do this is by killing off public services, and thus creating opportunities for investment in the private companies that replace them. In 1980s Britain, Margaret Thatcher privatised steel, coal, gas, electricity, water, and much else besides. In the short term, this plunged millions into unemployment, as factories and mines were closed down, and in the long term it resulted in massive price rises for basic services. But it had its intended effect – it provided valuable investment opportunities (for those with capital to spare) at a time when such opportunities were scarce, and created a long term source of fabulous profits. This summer, for example, saw the formerly publicly owned gas company Centrica hiking its prices by another 18% to bring in a £1.3billion profit. The raised prices will see many thousands more pensioners than usual die from the cold this winter as a result, but gas – like all commodities in capitalist society – is not there to provide heat, but to increase capital.

In the global South, privatisation was harsher still. Bodies like the IMF and the World Bank used the leverage provided by the debt-extortion mechanism (whereby interest rates were hiked on unpayable loans that had rarely benefited the population, often taken out by corrupt rulers imposed by Western governments in the first place) to force governments across Asia, Africa and Latin America to cut public spending on even basics such as health and education, along with agricultural subsidies. This contributed massively to the staggering rates of infant mortality and deaths from preventable disease, as well as to the AIDS epidemic now raging across Africa. But again the desired end for those imposing the policies was achieved, as new markets were created and holders of giant capital reserves could now invest in private companies to provide the services no longer available from the state. The profit system was given a new lease of life, its collapse staved off once again.

The World Bank’s closure of the Indian government’s grain rationing and distribution service, for example, meant that a scheme providing affordable grain to all Indian citizens was closed down, allowing private companies to come in and sell grain at massively increased prices (sometimes up to ten times higher). Whilst this has led to huge numbers of Indians being priced out of the market, and a resulting 200 million people now facing starvation in India, it has also led to record profits for the giant private companies now holding the world’s grain stocks – which is the whole point.

This round of global privatisation from the 1980s onwards, however, was so thorough that when the 2008 crisis hit, there were few state functions left to privatise. Creating investment opportunities now is much trickier than it was thirty years ago, because so much of what is potentially profitable is already being thoroughly exploited as it is.

In Europe, what is left of public services is hastily being dismantled, as right wing political leaders happily privatise what is left of the public sector, and currency speculators use their firepower to pick off any country that attempts to resist. David Cameron, following the path forced on the global South over recent decades, for example, is busy opening up Britain’s National Health Service to private companies, and massively cutting back on public service provision for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the jobless.

In the global South, however, there is little left for the West to privatise, as successive IMF policies have long ago forced those countries in their grip to strip their public services to the bone (and beyond) already.

But there is one state function which, if fully privatised across the world, would make the profits made even from essentials such as health care and education look like peanuts. That is the most basic and essential state function of all, indeed the whole raison d’etre for the state: security.

Private security companies are one of the few growth areas during times of global recession, as growing unemployment and poverty leads to increased social unrest and chaos, and those with wealth become more nervous about protecting both themselves, and their assets. Furthermore, as the Chinese economy advances at a rate of knots, military superiority is fast becoming the West’s only “competitive advantage” – the one area in which it’s expertise remains significantly ahead of its rivals. Turning this advantage, therefore, into an opportunity for investment and profit on a large-scale is now one of the chief tasks facing the rulers of Western economies.

A recent article in the Guardian noted that British private security firm Group 4 is now “Europe’s largest private sector employer”, employing 600,000 people – 50% more than make up the total armed forces of Britain and France combined. With growth last year of 9% in their “new markets” division, the company have “already benefited from the unrest in north Africa and the Middle East.” Group 4 are set to make a killing in Libya, following the total breakdown of security, likely to last for decades, resulting from NATO’s incineration of the country’s armed forces and wholesale destruction of its state apparatus. With the rule of law replaced by warfare between rival gangs of rebels, and no realistic prospect of a functioning police force for the foreseeable future, those Libyans able to manoeuvre themselves into positions of wealth and power will likely have to rely on private security for many years to come.

When Philip Hammond, Britain’s new Defence Secretary and a multi-millionaire businessman himself, suggested that British companies “pack their suitcases and head to Libya”, it was not only oil and construction companies he had in mind, but private security companies.

Private military companies are also becoming huge business – most famously, the US company Blackwater, renamed Xe Services after its original name became synonymous with the massacres committed by its forces in Iraq. In the USA, Blackwater has already taken over many of the security functions of the state – charging the Department of Homeland Security $1000 per day per head in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, for example. “When you ship overnight, do you use the postal service or do you use FedEx?” asked Erik Prince, founder and chairman of Blackwater. “Our corporate goal is to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did to the postal service”. Another Blackwater official commented that “None of us loves the idea that devastation became a business opportunity. It’s a distasteful fact. But that’s what it is. Doctors, lawyers, funeral directors, even newspapers – they all make a living off of bad things happening. So do we, because somebody’s got to handle it.”

The danger comes when the economic climate is such that the world’s most powerful governments feel they must do all they can to create such business opportunities. During the Cold War, the US military acted (as indeed it still does) to keep the global South in a state of poverty by attacking any government that seriously sought to challenge this poverty, and imposing governments that would crush trade unions and keep the population cowed. This created investment opportunities because it kept the majority of the world’s labour force in conditions so desperate they were willing to work for peanuts. But now this is not enough. In slump conditions, it doesn’t matter how cheap your workforce is if nobody is buying your products. To create the requisite business opportunities today – a large global market for its military expertise – Western governments must impose not only poverty, but also devastation. Devastation is the quickest route to converting the West’s military prowess into a genuine business opportunity that can create a huge new avenue for investment when all others are drying up. And this is precisely what is happening.  David Cameron is, for once, telling the truth, when he says “Whatever it takes to help our businesses take on the world – we’ll do it.”

As The Times put it recently, “In Iraq, the postwar business boom is not oil. It is security.” In both Iraq and Afghanistan, a situation of chronic and enduring instability and civil war has been created by a very precise method. Firstly, the existing state power is totally destroyed. Next, the possibility of utilising the country’s domestic expertise to rebuild state capacity is undermined against by barring former officials from working for the new government (a process known in Iraq as “de-Ba’athification”). Linked to this, the former ruling party is banned from playing any part in the political process, effectively ensuring that the largest and most organised political formation in each country has no option but to resort to armed struggle to gain influence, and thereby condemning the country to civil war. Next, vicious sectarianism is encouraged along whatever religious, ethnic and tribal divisions are available, often goaded by the covert actions of Western intelligence services. Finally, the wholesale privatisation of resources ensures chronically destabilising levels of unemployment and inequality.  The whole process is self-perpetuating, as the skilled and professional sections of the workforce – those with the means and connections – emigrate, leaving behind a dire skills shortage and even less chance of a functioning society emerging from the chaos.

This instability is not confined to the borders of the state which has been destroyed. In a masterfully cynical domino effect, for example, the aggression against Iraq has also helped to destabilise Syria. Three quarters of the 2 million Iraqi refugees fleeing the war in their own country have ended up in Syria, thus contributing to the pressure on the Syrian economy which is a major factor in the current unrest there.

The destruction of Libya will also have far reaching destabilising consequences across the region. As the recent United Nations Support Mission in Libya stated, “Libya had accumulated the largest known stockpile of Manpads [surface-to-air missiles] of any non-Manpad-producing country. Although thousands were destroyed during the seven-month Nato operations, there are increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability.” Furthermore, a large number of volatile African countries are currently experiencing a fragile peace secured by peacekeeping forces in which Libyan troops had been playing a vital role. The withdrawal of these troops may well be damaging to the maintenance of the peace. Similarly, Libya, under Gaddafi’s rule, had contributed generously to African development projects; a policy which will certainly be ended under the NTC – again, with potentially destabilising consequences.

Clearly, a policy of devastation and destabilisation fuels not only the market for private security, but also for arms sales – where, again, the US, Britain and France remain market leaders. And a policy of devastation through blitzkrieg fits in clearly with the big three current long term strategic objectives of Western policy planners:

1. To corner as large a share as possible of the world’s diminishing resources, most importantly oil, gas and water. A government of a devastated country is at the mercy of the occupying country when it comes to contracts. Gaddafi’s Libya, for example, drove a notoriously hard bargain with the Western powers over oil contracts – acting as a key force in the 1973 oil price spike, and still in 2009 being accused by the Financial Times of “resource nationalism”. But the new NTC government in Libya have been hand picked for their subservience to foreign interests – and know that their continued positions depend on their willingness to continue in this role.
2. To prevent the rise of the global South, primarily through the destruction of any independent regional powers (such as Iran, Libya, Syria etc) and the destabilisation, isolation and encirclement of the rising global powers (in particular China and Russia).
3. To overcome or limit the impact of economic collapse by using superior military force to create and conquer new markets through the destruction and rebuilding of infrastructure and the elimination of competition.

This policy of total devastation represents a departure from the Cold War policies of the Western powers. During the Cold War, whilst the major strategic aims remained the same, the methods were different. Independent regional powers in the global South were still destabilised and invaded – and regularly – but generally with the aim of installing ‘compliant dictatorships’. Thus, Lumumba was overthrown and replaced with Mobutu; Sukarno with Suharto; Allende with Pinochet; etc, etc. But the danger with this ‘imposed strongmen’ policy was that strongmen can become defiant. Saddam Hussein illustrated this perfectly. After having been backed for over a decade by the West, he turned on their stooge monarchy in Kuwait. Governments that are in control can easily get out of control. However, for as long as these strongmen were needed for the services provided by their armies (protecting investments, repressing workers struggles, etc), they were supported. The crisis now underway in the economies of the West, however, calls for more drastic measures. And the development of private security and private mercenary companies mean that the armies provided by these strongmen are starting to be deemed no longer necessary.

Congo is a case in point. For three decades, the Western powers had supported Mobutu Sese-Seko’s iron rule of the Congo. But then, in the mid-90s, they allowed him to be overthrown. However, rather than allowing the Congolese resistance forces to take power and establish an effective government, they then sponsored an invasion of the country by Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. Although these countries have now largely withdrawn their militias, they continue to sponsor proxy militias which have prevented the country seeing a moment’s peace for nearly fifteen years, resulting in the biggest slaughter since the end of the Second World War, with over 5 million killed. One result of this total breakdown of functioning government has been that the Western companies that loot Congo’s resources have been able to do so virtually for free. Despite being the world’s largest supplier of both coltan and copper, amongst many other precious minerals, the total tax revenue on these products in 2006-7 amounted to a puny £32 million. This is surely far less than what even the most useless neo-colonial puppet would have demanded.

This completely changes the meaning of the word ‘government’. In the Congo, the government’s best efforts to stabilise and develop the country have so far proved no match for the destabilisation strategies of the West and its stooges. In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

It goes without saying that this policy of devastation is turning the victimised countries into a living hell. After now more than thirty years of Western destabilisation, and ten years of outright occupation, Afghanistan is at or very hear the bottom of nearly every human development indicator available, with life expectancy at 44 years and an under-five mortality rate of over one in four. Mathew White, a history professor who has recently completed a detailed survey of the humanity’s worst atrocities throughout history, concluded that, without doubt, “chaos is far deadlier than tyranny”. It is a truth to which many Iraqis can testify.

Dan Glazebrook writes for the Morning Star newspaper and is a member of the editorial board of OURAIM publications.

DISSIDENT VOICE

WHEN Barak Hussein Obama took over the reins of power in January 2009, war on terror conceived by George W. Bush Junior and his team of neo-cons in October 2001 had reached the age of seven years and three months. Obama made a u-turn on his promise of bringing a change and continued with the policy of his predecessor of using force as the singular option to control terrorism and extremism. At the very outset, he formulated Af-Pak policy in which Afghanistan and Pakistan border region was marked as single battle zone under single command based in Kabul. It envisaged NATO conducting hot pursuits inside FATA whenever the situation warranted. In order to wrest the initiative from militant forces, Obama transferred Gen McChrystal from Baghdad to Kabul and also ordered move of 17000 US troops from Iraqi War Theater to Afghanistan to enable the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to launch a major operation in Helmand in Southern Afghanistan. Richard Holbrooke was appointed as Af-Pak envoy to coordinate and monitor progress on both sides of the Durand Line and to push Pakistan to do as told to do.

The US had to grudgingly modify its military strategy of making Durand Line redundant when Gen Kayani took a firm stand and said that sanctity of the western border must be respected by both sides. In reaction, the US decided to make maximum use of drones in FATA. Although it was also violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, our NRO cleansed civilian leadership gave its consent on the plea that both the US and Pakistan had common objective of defeating terrorism.

When the much-hyped military operation in Helmand launched by US-UK troops in February 2009 failed to throw out the Taliban, and later on suffered reverses in Nuristan in the east, Gen McChrystal sought further reinforcement in September 2010. Obama reluctantly agreed to provide additional 30,000 troops in December 2010 but also desired troop exit from July 2011 onwards. He thus gave another chance to the military to show tangible progress in next 18 months or else quit.

Surprisingly, the two troop surges instead of helping the ISAF in containing the Taliban rising power resulted in reverses and heavy casualties. 2010 proved to be the costliest year in which 707 battle casualties took place. Cases of mental diseases rose alarmingly high and so was the case with discipline both among ISAF and Afghan security forces. Critical security situation in Afghanistan coupled with mounting domestic pressure to bring home US troops, growing unpopularity of the war as well as downslide in economy and election year of 2012 drawing near propelled Obama to stick to his drawdown plan. He gave December 2014 as the cutout date and asked Pentagon to expedite training of Afghan Army and Police so that security duties could be handed over to them. Since Obama didn’t want to repeat the mistake Ronald Reagan had made to abandon Afghanistan in 1989 without stabilizing it, he therefore directed his political section to open talks with Taliban and work out a negotiated political settlement. To this end he re-emphasized that foremost mission of the US was to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda.

Efforts were made to befriend Taliban leaders and convince them to get detached from al-Qaeda which had been the principle source of their woes. Hamid Karzai and his half-brother Wali Karzai, a leading drug baron and blue-eyed boy of CIA, both having good connections with notables of Pashtun community were also encouraged to play their part in wooing as many Taliban leaders and induce them to renounce violence and agree to share power. Hamid Karzai regime and the US pinned high hopes in Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani appointed as Chairman High Peace Council.

Rabbani might have succeeded in his mission of convincing sizeable number of Taliban leaders to accept Karzai’s offer of preferring peace over violence and sharing power with Northern Alliance. However, outside players led by USA tried to act smart by opening backdoor secret channels so as to induce and bribe moderate as well as hard line Taliban leaders with a view to isolating Mullah Omar and others who refused to accept America’s three conditions of surrendering arms and renouncing violence, severing ties with al-Qaeda and accepting US drafted western model democracy. In other words, the spoilers worked on the strategy of dividing the Taliban with a view to weakening them and then negotiating from position of strength.

Ibrahim Haqqani and Sirajuddin Haqqani held separate meetings with US officials. Latter was offered share in power provided he ditched Mullah Omar. He made it clear that without the blessing of his Ameer ul Momineen, he would not be able to take decisions at his own. Haqqanis were given the title of Haqqani Network (HN) and declared the most dangerous outfit when they hit military targets in Kabul several times with impunity. Murder of Rabbani blocked the peace effort. These attacks blew up the story spun by ISAF media team that lot of progress had been made on the military front. No evidence had ever been proffered to prove that ISAF had turned the corner, or that militants were put on defensive, or beaten.

Nonplussed by the ever growing power of Taliban and not knowing how to contain it, spin doctors of ISAF started fabricating excuses to hide poor performance of US military. They said that the insurgency in Southern Afghanistan owed its success to Mullah Omar led Quetta Shura and that of Eastern Afghanistan to North Waziristan (NW) based HN duly protected by ISI. The US gave vent to its enragement by throwing the blame at the doorsteps of Pakistan and making it the scapegoat. Since 22 September when outgoing Admiral Mullen went ballistics, the US officials have been firing salvos at Pakistan relentlessly. The US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Washington had to consider military action against Pakistan. Max Boot suggested that the US should adopt a tough approach towards ISI and should treat it the way Iran’s Quds Force in Iraq was treated. Congressmen are pressing for total stoppage of aid to Pakistan.

The US role as chief power broker has waned, but Pakistan ’s importance has increased in future negotiations for a peaceful settlement. It is this hard reality which the US knows and hence cannot afford to ditch Pakistan at this critical juncture when ISAF’s safe withdrawal is in jeopardy. Karzai also knows that Pakistan and not the US will provide the last straw to save him from drowning. The US claim that it can do without Pakistan ’s support is wishful. In the absence of Taliban protagonists, regional initiative in the form of Istanbul Conference on 2 November and Bonn meeting on 5 December will prove unproductive.

To hope that Afghan Army will fill the vacuum, or unpopular and corrupt Karzai regime will amicably manage the affairs once ISAF departs will be idealistic. In case another 1989 Geneva Accord like agreement takes place without the involvement of Taliban, Afghanistan will once again get caught up in internecine war as was the case after the withdrawal of Soviet troops. This time the bloodshed and instability will be far greater since Northern Alliance has 174,000 strong well equipped Army and hugely expanded police force and ethnic hatred has heightened. This trained force will splinter into private militias under warlords. Disorder in Afghanistan will once again adversely impact Pakistan.

Pakistan can play its role in facilitating process of political settlement of Afghan imbroglio more effectively and to the advantage of USA if it is trusted and its sovereignty is respected. Browbeating and humiliating Pakistan will complicate matters particularly when anti-Americanism in Pakistan has scaled new heights and ruling regime has become fragile. Shortsighted actions by hawkish elements in USA at the behest of Indian and Jewish lobbies will not be in the interest of both America and Pakistan.

Given the state of US and western economies that have yet not got out of the whirlpool of global recession and the ongoing ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement which is gaining ground, I have a hunch that the ISAF will quit Afghanistan in haste much before 2014. If the US wants an honorable exit, the only way out is to put an immediate end to bloodshed and give peace a chance, involve Taliban in peace talks by discarding pre-conditions and desire for permanent military bases, and direct all out efforts towards forming a broad based interim government.

The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. Email:asifharoon7751@yahoo.com

AFGHAN President Hamid Karzai’s younger half-brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, was killed in Kandahar on 12 July during a gathering in his house, according to Kandahar’s Canadian Governor Tooryali Wesa. He was shot in the head and chest with a AK-47 fired by Sardar Mohammad, a former bodyguard to another Karzai brother Qayyoum.

The 50-year-old Ahmad, a restaurant worker in Chicago before catapulting to fame on Hamid’s shirt-tails, was appointed chairman of the Kandahar Provincial Council in 2005. A ruthless autocrat, he was widely despised, and escaped multiple assassination attempts in the past, but his death nonetheless comes as a major blow to President Karzai in the homeland of the Taliban, and will set off a vicious power struggle to fill Ahmad’s shoes.

US ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann, the CIA’s station chief and their British counterparts pleaded with the president in 2006 to exile his brother, accused of drug dealing. Hamid angrily rejected these accusations and Ahmad stayed in place, rigging the 2009 Afghan presidential elections for him, as he continued to amass wealth, extorting kickbacks on construction contracts, even shaking down bus and truck drivers at police posts.

Whatever they thought of him, the American military readily rented properties he specially confiscated for them, including the former residence of Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar. The CIA paid him to organise several mercenary forces to help them kill Taliban, even as he was working with the Taliban behind the scenes. He had the support of US Senator John Kerry and even General David Petraeus: “President Karzai is working to create a stronger, more secure Afghanistan, and for such a tragic event to happen to someone within his own family is unfathomable.”

Resentment against the king of Kandahar was long ready to explode, and his murder was welcomed by Kandaharans and Taliban alike. Though he unwittingly recruited even more Taliban than he helped kill, Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi was happy to take responsibility for sending him on his way: “Today in Kandahar city, Hamid Karzai’s brother was killed during Operation Al-Badr. Ahmad Wali Karzai was punished for all his wrongdoings.” Qari’s comrade Mullah Adam Haji concurred: “Ahmad Wali was the best US friend and the Taliban’s worst enemy. He and his whole family have the blood of thousands of Taliban on their hands. His death is very good news for us.”

Eric Walberg is a journalist who worked in Uzbekistan and is now writing for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo..

ON 7th October 2001, President Bush launched the ‘Sock and Awe’ Crusade against Taliban, hoping to defeat them and consolidate hold over Afghanistan but failed. The Taliban emerged victorious and are not prepared to give concessions unless the occupation forces leave Afghanistan.

The shame of defeat, at the hands of the rag-tag Taliban is the greatest embarrassment for the sole super power of the world. Instead of accepting defeat, USA has opted for a ‘Strategy of Siege’ worked-out at NATO headquarters in Brussels, by their Strategic Plans Division. The ‘strategy of Siege’ is a vicious plan, of deceit and despair, with defeat writ large in itself.

The plan envisages pulling-out of most of the troops by end 2012, less10-12000 troops, comprising mainly Special Forces and the Marines to hold the fortresses of Kabul, Kandhar and Herat and the nearby air bases, at Kwaja Rawat, Kandhar and Shindand. Jalalabad will be held as a fortress by the Afghan Army. Mazar-e-Sharif and the air base at Dehdadi, will be developed as fortresses by the Northern Alliance.

The areas in the South, from Helmand to Laghman will be left in control of the Taliban, as the beginning of the vicious plan, to divide Afghanistan in three zones. Mazar-e-Sharif, will thus be an important fortress, to guard the alternate supply and exit route through the Central Asian territories, because passage through Pakistan is hazardous.

The American claim, that 40% of their supplies are coming through this route, may not be true, because it is very long and hazardous, as indicated in the map below. The Russians also, won’t like that their ‘near-abroad’ gets radicalized by the militant organizations, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), who would try to interdict the movements along this route.

The American Strategy of Fortress Defense, envisages a kind of “secretive war, involving armed drones and special operation forces to carry out surgical operations, employing ‘unique assets’ against terrorist threat.” Washington has already extended covert drone attacks to Yemen and Somalia. Such operations will be “particularly focused on Pakistan, on eliminating the Al-Qaeda safe heavens.” How Pakistan and Taliban in Afghanistan are going to react to this strategy, is important.

Focusing operations against Pakistan has already pushed Pak-American relations to the brink. Under public pressure, Pak forces, now have no option but to retaliate, against such blatant violation of country’s sovereignty. How and in what manner, retaliatory actions will be taken, is a matter of Command Decision. The strategic cost of such clandestine actions by the Americans, therefore, would far outweigh the tactical gains and the fall out on relations with Pakistan.

The Taliban have already accelerated the pace of their summer offensive against the occupation forces, inflicting heavy casualties on the retreating enemy. And as the American forces, get holed-up into the fortresses, possibly by mid next year, the Taliban would enjoy the advantage of space and freedom of movement, to conduct operations more effectively against the fortresses. The combination of ‘Men and Missiles,’ which helped Hezbollah, shatter the myth of invincibility of the Israeli army in 2006, would also help the Taliban to break the will of the forces holding the fortresses, because Taliban would be enjoying greater freedom of movement and the resultant operational advantages.

The operational environment also is not at all favourable for the strategy of fortress defense. There is hostility within the country and hostility without, of the neighbouring countries, particularly Pakistan and Iran. Russia and China won’t like the Americans to hang-on in Afghanistan any longer. The sooner they leave, better it would be for peace to prevail in the region. External pressures and support to the Taliban will add to the problems of the forces, under siege.

After the exit of the Americans, it is the Taliban, who ultimately will gain control over Afghanistan. They have the bitter experience of betrayal by the Americans since 1990 and have trust only in themselves, to form a broad-based government, which is the only viable course to secure peace in Afghanistan. The Americans must therefore exit from Afghanistan, sooner the better, than to extend the pain and shame of defeat, through the ‘strategy of siege’ which has already failed, before implementation.

Mirza Aslam Baig is a retired Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan (1988 to 1991). He is credited for improving the fighting capabilities of the Pakistan Army.

MARK THE TRUTH

THEY say it really isn’t an official summer road trip until a kid throws up in the car. Our road trip was official within the second hour of driving. But that was the least nauseating part of the trip because I had the most unfortunate experience of traveling during the Anthony trial.

I know, I know. Never heard of it, right? Yeah, I wish too. It was being discussed in many of the places we happened through. Vicksburg, Pensacola, Tallulah — it was as if this child was a relative to all. Wisps of conversations floating about.

I spotted a waitress in Jonesboro, Arkansas showing her phone to a coworker. At first I thought, well, that’s sweet; she’s showing a photo of her child she’s proud of. But then I saw the screen of her phone (she was near me and I’m quite nosy). It was a photo of the Anthony girl. The waitress was visibly shaken; she was telling someone about that trial and her displeasure with the jury results. Frantic nods were exchanged as the women looked with wet eyes at the digital image of a toddler.

This got me to thinking about the effects of immediacy and empathy. This child of the South was being mourned with obvious zeal, but grief for the countless children who are currently dying from things like drone attacks isn’t something being experienced in these venues. That’s just nonsense to ponder, really. The media has focused on this one child almost as an exhaust valve for well meaning individuals who just absorb the news they are fed; people who still evidently have the capacity to grieve for someone they don’t even know. And it certainly keeps discussion away from the more concrete and systemic ailments facing this nation.

One wonders if the mainstream media picked one single child from Afghanistan, a child killed in a drone attack. Could they foster the same empathy if countless photos of an adorable, large eyed child were available (of course, they wouldn’t be, but for comparison sake….)? If the child’s milestones were described, if crying relatives were placed on the news with continued stories each night, maybe some of her friends could describe how much they miss her. Could the same level of loss be arrived at by these women in the far flung regions of the South? I really don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s not like this will be tested out. Americans aren’t supposed to grieve for those others, and their news will not avail the opportunity.

Those kids are statistics but ours are precious.

I know that the salacious aspects of this case probably piqued the interest of those who normally don’t follow news of any kind, but it is undeniable that this is what is served to these individuals. It’s not like they have easily accessible information on anything other than the three or four stories that have been agreed upon as the news to be chewed up, regurgitated and stuffed into their baby bird mouths.

I’ve learned from coworkers who refused to allow me that precious ignorance I had in regard to this case that the mom was involved in “Hot Body” contests after her child was dead. I’m sure you have similar helpful people in your lives. The ones who make sure you know about the things that you don’t want to know about. It’s all very generous of them. But it did spark a thought:

Maybe the child deaths in Iraq weren’t so newsworthy in the previous years because of a lack of a Hot Body angle. If only Rummy had competed in Hot Body contests. He might have received some sympathy votes for his old saggy ass, and maybe the depleted uranium babies could have merited an expert or two on Headline News.

Obama pretty much just does his own personal “Hot Body” contests; they aren’t done on the road or in public, so probably no follow up on the Afghanistan drone attacks. He oils up in front of the mirror in the Lincoln bedroom in his underpants, cigarette dangling from his lips. “Who’s a hot body? You’re a hot body.” (he talks about himself in the third person). As he starts to pull his underpants down for part two of his performance his handler comes in. “Yes, yes, I’m working on the speech“ (he clears his throat and adjusts the underpants) “Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming.”

“That’s perfect, Mr. Bateman, I mean, President Obama. Everyone will think it’s funny to mention the Jonas Brothers in coordination with predator drones. That’s comedy gold.”

I know it’s a difficult job for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. You can’t know if the child deaths will have any Hot Body connection so you really don’t know whether to employ the experts or not. Like everything in the journalistic world these days, it’s all so “unexpected”.

I’m probably being a bit aggressive in not mentioning that, of course, any child death is a tragedy beyond scope; it’s just another sad example of American Narcissism (yes, I capitalized that; it seems necessary). So many brutal and tragic demises are just cast upon the carnage heap that is Empire Gone Wild. The mainstream media decides who and what deserves compassion, and it isn’t anyone hapless enough to be born in a nation needin’ bombing.

I’m not sure what the next diversion of the week will be, but I do know one thing:

“Two words for you: Conscientious Reporting. You definitely will not see it.”

Kathleen Wallace Peine welcomes reader response. She can be reached at: kathypeine@gmail.com. 

DISSIDENT VOICE

US hate killers in Afghanistan

DURING his intensive initial round of media interviews as commander in Afghanistan in August 2010, Gen. David Petraeus released figures to the news media that claimed spectacular success for raids by Special Operations Forces: in a 90-day period from May through July, SOF units had captured 1,355 rank and file Taliban, killed another 1,031, and killed or captured 365 middle or high-ranking Taliban.

The claims of huge numbers of Taliban captured and killed continued through the rest of 2010. In December, Petraeus’s command said a total of 4,100 Taliban rank and file had been captured in the previous six months and 2,000 had been killed.

Those figures were critical to creating a new media narrative hailing the success of SOF operations as reversing what had been a losing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

But it turns out that more than 80 percent of those called captured Taliban fighters were released within days of having been picked up, because they were found to have been innocent civilians, according to official U.S. military data.

Even more were later released from the main U.S. detention facility at Bagram air base called the Detention Facility in Parwan after having their files reviewed by a panel of military officers.

The timing of Petraeus’s claim of Taliban fighters captured or killed, moreover, indicates that he knew that four out of five of those he was claiming as “captured Taliban rank and file” were not Taliban fighters at all.

Checking on the claims of the number of Taliban commanders and rank and file killed is impossible, but the claims of Taliban captured could be checked against official data on admission of detainees added to Parwan.

An Afghan detained by U.S. or NATO forces can only be held in a Forward Operating Base for a maximum of 14 days before a decision must be made about whether to release the individual or send him to Parwan for longer-term detention.

IPS has now obtained an unclassified graph by Task Force 435, the military command responsible for detainee affairs, on Parwan’s monthly intake and release totals for 2010, which shows that only 270 detainees were admitted to that facility during the 90-day period from May through July 2010.

That figure also includes alleged Taliban commanders who were sent to Parwan and whom Petraeus counted separately from the rank and file figure. Thus more than four out of every five Afghans said to have been Taliban fighters captured during that period had been released within two weeks as innocent civilians.

When Petraeus decided in mid-August to release the figure of 1,355 Taliban rank and file allegedly captured during the 90-day period, he already knew that 80 percent or more of that total had already been released.

Major Sunset R. Belinsky, the ISAF press officer for SOF operations, conceded to IPS last September that the 1,355 figure applied only to “initial detentions”.

Task Force 435 commander Adm. Robert Harward confirmed in a press briefing for Journalists November 30, 2010 that 80 percent of the Afghans detained by the U.S. military during the entire year to that point had been released within two weeks.

“This year, in this battlespace, approximately 5,500 individuals have been detained,” Harward said, adding the crucial fact that “about 1,100 have come to the detention facility in Parwan.”

Harward did not explain the discrepancy between the two figures, however, and no journalist attending the Pentagon briefing asked for such an explanation.

Petraeus continued to exploit media ignorance of the discrepancy between the number of Taliban rank and file said to have been “captured” and the number actually sent to the FDIP.

In early December, ISAF gave Bill Roggio, a blogger for “The Long War Journal” website, the figure of more than 4,100 “enemy fighters” captured from June 1 through November 30, along with 2,000 rank and file Taliban killed.

But during those six months, only 690 individuals were sent to Parwan, according to the Task Force 435 data – 17 percent of the 4,100 Taliban rank and file claimed captured as “Taliban”.

The total of 690 detainees also includes an unknown number of commanders counted separately by Petraeus and a large number of detainees who were later released from Parwan. Considering those two factors, the actual proportion of those claimed as captured Taliban who were found not to be part of the Taliban organisation rises to 90 percent or even higher.

Three hundred forty-five detainees, or 20 percent of the 1,686 total number of those who were detained in Parwan from June through November, were released upon review of their cases, according to the same February 5, 2011 Task Force document obtained by IPS. The vast majority of those released from the facility had been sent to Parwan in June or later.

Detainees are released from Parwan only when the evidence against them is so obviously weak or nonexistent that U.S officers cannot justify continuing to hold them, despite the fact that the detainees lack normal procedural rights in the “non-adversarial” hearing by the Task Force’s Detainee Review.

The deliberate confusion sowed by Petraeus by referring to anyone picked up for interrogation as a captured rank and file Taliban was a key element of a carefully considered strategy for creating a more favourable image of the war.

As Associated Press reporter, Kimberly Dozier, wrote in a September 3, 2010 news analysis after an interview with Petraeus, he was very conscious that “demonstrating progress is difficult in a war fought in hundreds of small, scattered engagements, where frontlines do not move and where cities do not fall.”

SOF raids, however, could be turned into a dramatic story line. “The mystique of elite, highly trained commandos swooping down on an unsuspecting Taliban leader in the dead of night plays well back home,” wrote Dozier, “especially at a time when much of the news from Afghanistan focuses on rising American deaths and frustration with the Afghan government.”

Petraeus made sure the impact of the new SOF narrative would be maximised by presenting the total of Afghans swept up in SOF raids as actual Taliban fighters.

The deceptive nature of those statistics, as now revealed by U.S. military data, raises anew the question of whether the statistics released by Petraeus on killing of alleged Taliban were similarly skewed.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

This article was posted on Monday, June 13th, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under

IPS

Dissident Voice

ON May 29, 2011, President Obama visited Joplin, Missouri, the site of a devastating tornado that killed 140 and pronounced it a terrible “tragedy”. But were the deaths the inevitable result of ‘natural events’ beyond the human intervention?

Coincidentally the same week Afghan President Karzai condemned the killing of a family of 14 by a NATO fighter bomber, running the total to several hundred civilians killed so far this year and thousands over the decade.

The relation between the civilian deaths in Joplin and Afghanistan raises fundamental questions about the priorities, character and direction of the US Empire and the future of the American republic.

Geography of Tornadoes

Every year at least 20 major violent tornadoes – with winds exceeding 200 mph – hit “tornado alley” and beyond, including central Texas, northern Iowa, central Kansas, Nebraska, western Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. Each and every year at least sixty are killed and several hundred are maimed and injured. This year, through May 2011, over 519 have been killed, 25% of whom were in mobile homes, almost three times as many as those in standard houses.

In other words, these tornado-related deaths are predictable, annual, and region-specific and have a higher incidence among low income households. Government agencies and academics have compiled data banks and time series information mapping the route, frequency and impact of tornadoes.

Information about the nature of killer tornadoes is plentiful. Nevertheless, deaths mount from year to year. Fear and insecurity stalks the region’s most susceptible to the violent whirlwinds, even as the Congress and White House have increased personnel and funding for ‘Homeland Security’ twenty fold over the decade .The current budget is over $180 billion. If we add the deaths caused by other ‘natural’ disasters like the flooding of New Orleans, the numbers of deaths are staggering. What explains this perverse relation between huge public funding for ‘homeland security’ and the increased insecurity of vulnerable Americans in clearly identified danger zones?

The reason is clear: ‘Homeland Security’ (HS) is an Orwellian misnomer. The agency is not concerned with domestic, civilian, American security. HS is part of a military-police response to imagined overseas threats, which have not materialized or at least have not produced deaths comparable to tornadoes and floods in the last 11 years.

HS spends billions and employs thousands to investigate, spy and harass citizens engaged in legal-constitutional activities. HS and the Pentagon spend tens of billions on overseas infrastructures – buildings, bases, camps — and over 900 billion in arms. HS and the Defense Department forcefully intervene militarily throughout the world via overt and clandestine operations.

To be precise HS intervenes offensively overseas, attacking civilian targets, while it fails to engage domestically to protect American civilians who are left defenseless in the face of predictable natural disasters.

HS and the Pentagon’s sustained violent overseas operations are rejected and regarded as a hostile imperial intervention by the civilians in those countries adversely affected. In contrast, defenseless citizens in the US would welcome large-scale intervention in the form of community shelters, which would provide survival, security, life-saving protection and financial aid for rebuilding their lives. Moreover, Pentagon and HS spending on overseas infrastructure, bases and bombs results in deficits, whereas investments in tornado and flood shelters would stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the US.

The current activity of HS destroys lives abroad and neglects survival at home: It has nothing to do with our “homeland” and even less with our “security”. Five percent of HS budget would have prevented many of Joplin’s ‘tragedy’ (and saved us from Obama’s gaseous oratory!) and the other 400 deaths from this year’s crop of tornadoes.

Systemic Bases of Perpetual Domestic Neglect

Death from ‘natural’ events raises a fundamental POLITICAL question: Why is the budget of Homeland Security and the Pentagon directed overseas, toward destructive, offensive, military activity rather than to domestic, constructive, defensive activity to protect American lives and productive economic activity?

The problem is systemic not due to some personal flaw or political idiosyncrasy of the moment. The structures of the US economy and military institutions are oriented ‘outwardly’ to conquering foreign financial markets and building a military empire. The ideology which informs strategic policymakers is imperial-centered not republican: They do not speak of developing and deepening the economy and security of ‘middle America’. Every member of the political and corporate elite talks of ‘world’ or ‘global’ leadership – a thinly veiled euphemism for the drive to sustain world dominance. Within the imperial framework the entire ‘security’ budget is directed toward maintaining offensive military supremacy. No wonder there is a steep decline in all spheres of domestic security – natural, social, personal, health and employment –a phenomenon that proceeds with little public debate. The only exception is when threats to security impinge most directly and forcefully on a significant sector of the population. For example, witness the storm of protest from those directly affected when the politicians moved to privatize social security and Medicare.

Nevertheless, the entire political spectrum, the two parties, the Congress and the White House over the past 30 years, have created an artificial consensus in which overseas wars, foreign aid to patrons (Israel) and clients (Pakistan and Egypt) absorbs the greatest percentage of budgetary spending. No political or economic leadership has stepped forward to articulate the obvious connection between global expansion and domestic decay; to forcefully state that the deterioration of the republic is a direct product of the vast resources channeled into military and economic empire building. Who on New York City’s Wall Street or Washington’s Pentagon is going to even look at or consider a ‘security plan’ with regard to the geography of catastrophes – tornado alley covering a dozen states and the floods and deaths that overwhelm the lowlands from Montana to Louisiana?

Listen America

Their message is loud and clear:

Small towns and trailer parks do not count! You have your 2nd amendment (the ‘right to bear arms’), you have your ‘small government’, and you have your flags: ‘Wav ‘em and weep’ as tornadoes blow down your houses and your sons and daughters return wrapped in flags to the Battle Hymn of the Empire!

Conclusion

One might argue that community storm shelters won’t break the Treasury or reverse the empire. More to the point, their absence, from the federal, state and local political agenda, is emblematic of the total subordination of domestic America to imperial Washington. The ‘cost’ of building community shelters at the strip malls and trailer parks in Joplin, Missouri is less than a regional training outpost in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It is not a question of money.

Conquering Afghanistan villages enhances the prestige of the Generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO officials. Can saving 145 lives in Joplin, Missouri match that in terms of world politics or the politics of imperial leadership? For Afghanistan, Washington builds a thousand military shelters and bomb proof bunkers .For the Americans living in tornado alley and the flood plains of the Mississippi people must make do.

When you hear the tornado warning, it’s up to you. As a proud, free American you can find a rock to crawl under and say your prayer: the Federal government and Homeland Security have the Endless, World-wide War against Terror to fight and cannot be bothered by a Joplin, Missouri nursing home in the path of a tornado.

We exaggerate: Obama will jet in and speak before the cameras in solemn terms of the ‘tragedy’ and ‘courage’ of the people of Joplin… But will any local politician stand up and speak truth to power? Most of these deaths and (many more to come) are avoidable; under a democratic American republic, the government ‘intervenes’ to provide protection, health and employment for its people.

In the meantime, as the empire continues to grow it destroys its own people, just like the sow that devours its offspring.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). Petras’ most recent book is The Arab Revolt and the Imperialist Counterattack. (Clear Day Books – A subsidiary of Clarity Books). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu.