Messages In This Digest (11 Messages)

8.: U.S. Drone Attack Kills Nine In Pakistan From: Rick Rozoff

9.: "Reset" And Missile Defense From: Rick Rozoff

10.: NATO: No Military Cuts, Wars Abroad, Missile Shield 'Vancouver-Vladi From: Rick Rozoff

11.: America's "Afghan Trap" Enter 10th Year From: Rick Rozoff

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.: Romania: U.S.-NATO Missile Shield Part Of Article 5 Military Clause

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:02 am (PDT)

http://www.financiarul.ro/2010/10/09/bogdan-aurescu-reiterates-romanias-support-for-a-nato-anti-missile-shield/

The Financiarul
October 9, 2010

Bogdan Aurescu reiterates Romania's support for a NATO anti-missile shield

Secretary of State with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bogdan Aurescu stressed on Friday that Romania supports a political decision to be taken by the NATO Summit in Lisbon, in November, that the Alliance builds an anti-missile shield in Europe.

Attending a debate organized by the Institute for Public Policy (IPP), at the Cotroceni National Museum, Aurescu said that the future NATO anti-ballistic system should be related to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which summarizes the concept of collective defense of the Alliance's members.

"I reiterate our support for a good political decision at Lisbon, for the creation of an anti¬missile defense system of NATO, as the Alliance's mission, and I repeat strongly related to Article 5″, said former Representative of Romania to the Court of Justice in The Hague in the dispute with Ukraine over the continental shelf.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: Afghanistan: NATO Loses 24 Soldiers So Far This Month

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:04 am (PDT)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9IO1SQG0?docId=D9IO1SQG0

Associated Press
October 9, 2010

NATO: 4 service members killed in west Afghanistan
By ROBERT KENNEDY

KABUL, Afghanistan: Four NATO troops were killed in an insurgent attack Saturday in western Afghanistan, the military alliance said.

NATO did not release the nationalities of the service members killed, or provide a specific location where the attack occurred.

The deaths brought to 24 the number of NATO forces killed this month. At least 2,012 NATO service members have died since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, according to an Associated Press count.

Violence continues unabated in many areas in Afghanistan, with an increase in insurgent attacks and NATO-Afghan operations now gripping the north.

Fighting has also surged in southern Afghanistan since NATO and Afghan forces launched operation Dragon Strike last month in areas around Kandahar city — 260 miles (420 kilometers) southwest of the capital, Kabul....

Three NATO service members were killed Friday in the south, including a Briton who died in a roadside blast in Helmand province.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.: BBC Eastern Europe Hand, Romanian Emigree Next NATO Spokesman

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:04 am (PDT)

http://www.financiarul.ro/2010/10/09/romanian-born-lungescu-the-new-nato-spokesperson/

The Financiarul
October 9, 2010

Romanian-born Lungescu, the new NATO spokesperson

-Having left her native Romania in 1985, she joined BBC's Romanian section and went on to cover painful transition to democracy in Romania and the former Soviet Republic of Moldova, BBC reports.

Romanian-born Oana Lungescu, a journalist of the UK BBC channel, will take over the office of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Spokesperson as from December 1, daily Romania Libera reports.

The information was confirmed a little while ago by NATO officials quoted by the Antena 1 commercial channel. Oana Lungescu will take over the office from James Appathurai, the incumbent spokesperson for NATO whose term in office expires in late November.

Lungescu was chief editor and deputy director of the BBC's Romanian section. She has been reporting on EU and NATO enlargement from Brussels since January 1997, the paper reports.

Having left her native Romania in 1985, she joined BBC's Romanian section and went on to cover painful transition to democracy in Romania and the former Soviet Republic of Moldova, BBC reports.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.: At Least 4 Italian Soldiers Killed In Afghan Ambush

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:14 am (PDT)

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1590218.php/Four-Italian-soldiers-killed-in-Afghanistan-Roundup

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
October 9, 2010

Four Italian soldiers killed in Afghanistan (Roundup)

Rome/Kabul: At least four Italian soldiers were killed Saturday and another was injured in a Taliban ambush in western Afghanistan, officials said.

The attack happened in Gulistan district in the western province of Farah, Italian Defence Ministry spokesman General Massimo Fogari told television news.

The victims were killed when a bomb exploded near their armoured car, part of a column of 70 Italian military vehicles, Fogari said.

'It was a typical insurgent attack involving a mixture of gunfire and explosives,' Fogari said.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) also confirmed in a statement that four of its soldiers were killed in an insurgent attack in western region, without specifically identifying them as the deaths reported by the Italian government.

The Taliban militant group took responsibility for the attack in a statement posted on its website, saying their fighters destroyed five military tanks and one army ranger in two separate attacks in Gulistan district. It said several soldiers were killed in the attacks.

Later on Saturday, Taliban fighters destroyed 10 supply trucks and one military tank, which was escorting the convoy. It was part of a multi-pronged assault in Gulistan district.

Saturday's attack brought to 34 the number of Italian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since 2004, when Italy began deploying troops as part of the international military mission there.

A total of 568 international soldiers have been killed in the Afghan conflict so far this year, according to ICasaulties.org, an independent website that tracks military fatalities in Afghanistan. That figure does not include the latest deaths.

This year has already been the bloodiest for international troops since their deployment to the war-torn country following the ouster of Taliban regime in late 2001. More than 150,000 US and NATO troops are currently based in Afghanistan.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.: Canada: New Deployments Headquarters For Afghan-Style Missions

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:14 am (PDT)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/army-stands-up-new-rapid-deployment-headquarters-with-an-old-name-104528894.html

Canadian Press
October 7, 2010

Army stands up new rapid deployment headquarters with an old name

-Elements from the Army, Navy and Air Force will be present at the headquarters...."It incorporates a lot of what we learned in Afghanistan."
-It will operate under the direction of the Ottawa-based Canadian Expeditionary Force Command.

KINGSTON, Ont. - The military has established a new headquarters for a division with a long history to handle overseas missions.

The 1st Canadian Division headquarters formally stood up on Thursday under the command of Maj.-Gen. David Fraser, who commanded NATO troops in southern Afghanistan in 2006.

The division traces its roots back to the First World War and has been disbanded and reactivated a couple of times.

Fraser says putting the organization back in place means that the Forces will be more nimble and can respond to future missions — be it combat such as Afghanistan or humanitarian assistance in Haiti — faster and smoother.

Elements from the Army, Navy and Air Force will be present at the headquarters, along with civilians.

"It incorporates a lot of what we learned in Afghanistan," said Fraser.

The unit of about 100 soldiers, engineers, military planners and logistics specialists will organize the rapid deployment of units to whatever trouble spot the federal government assigns.

It will operate under the direction of the Ottawa-based Canadian Expeditionary Force Command.

Although the army has been planning to re-establish the headquarters for months, the mission to Haiti last January gave the idea an extra push. The Conservatives won high-praise for the military's quick action.

Fraser said when he took over as commander in Kandahar he only had limited time to train and get know his fellow officers who helped direct the war in the early stages.

Having a permanent, trained headquarters that's able to pick up and go anywhere means the Canadian military will be ready whenever its called, he said.

The unit will also lead non-combat evacuation missions, such as the one out of Lebanon in 2006 and deployments conducted by the Disaster Assistance Response Team — DART.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.: Australian Special Forces Soldier Wounded In Afghan Attack

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:14 am (PDT)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-10/09/c_13548415.htm

Xinhua News Agency
October 9, 2010

Australian soldier wounded by IED in Afghanistan

CANBERRA: An Australian soldier is recovering in Afghanistan after he was wounded by an exploding roadside bomb, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) said on Saturday.

According to a statement from the ADF, the soldier from the Special Operations Task Group suffered superficial wounds when the vehicle he was traveling in struck an improvised explosive device (IED) in northern Kandahar of Afghanistan six days ago.

The wounded soldier was flown to a medical facility at Kandahar Airfield, but later released after an assessment confirmed he had not been seriously injured.

He would spend a short time recovering before returning to combat operations, Commodore Roger Boyce said in a statement released on Saturday.

The incident occurred during a joint operation between Australian and Afghan troops to improve security in and around Kandahar city.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: Pakistan: NATO Loses 150 Tankers In 10 Days

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:15 am (PDT)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-10/09/c_13548885.htm

Xinhua News Agency
October 9, 2010

NATO loses 150 tankers in Pakistan as supply blockade enters 10th day
by Syed Moazzam Hashmi

ISLAMABAD: Almost 150 NATO oil tankers and supply trucks turned to ashes and at least 20 people were killed in Pakistan with 29 more containers burnt in a sixth...attack on Saturday morning since the beginning of October.

Pakistan imposed a blockade on supplies to the NATO trucks on Oct. 1, following an incursion by U.S.-led NATO gunship helicopters on Sept. 30 that killed three paramilitary troops at a checkpoint on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in the troubled Kurram tribal area in northwest Pakistan.

The Pentagon, NATO and the U.S. envoy in Islamabad have apologized for the incursion after an investigation this week that found NATO forces guilty. However, the Pakistani foreign office stated that no decision on reopening the Torkham border in the northwest has yet been taken.

Earlier this week, Pakistani foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit told Xinhua in an interview that the NATO supply blockade is [in effect] due to security concerns and the borders will be reopened as soon as the situation is improved.

The fire that destroyed 29 NATO supply oil tankers at 1:30 a.m. local time Saturday morning at Mithri, in the Bolan district of the southwest Balochistan province of Pakistan, was still burning after nine hours, as only one fire tender was available in the remote area to fight the blaze, local sources told Xinhua.

A dozen unidentified armed men riding four motorcycles fired a rocket and shot a volley of fire at the NATO tankers, eyewitnesses and police said. No group has so far accepted responsibility for the inferno, which also gutted four nearby shops as well, eyewitnesses said.

The convoy was on its way to Afghanistan through Chaman at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which is now partially open to NATO supplies. The gates of the other entry point into Afghanistan, Torkham in the northwest Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, remained shut for the tenth day.

In the first incident in October over 35 NATO tankers were burnt in Shikarpur in the southern Sindh province while two more were destroyed in southwest Balochistan province the same day. Two days later, 20 tankers were set ablaze in the garrison city of Rawalpindi near capital Islamabad.

In the third incident some two dozens were destroyed near Quetta, Balochistan shortly before over 50 tankers were torched to ashes in Nowshehra in the northwest on Wednesday. In June, one major attack on NATO supplies set 60 trucks on fire near Islamabad.

The disbanded Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) had accepted the responsibility of all the incidents as Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq vowed to continue attacks on NATO supplies.

However, some local analysts rule out Taliban's involvement in attacks on NATO convoys in Balochistan, as they believe TTP is not as influential in Balochistan as in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province....

Although NATO claims that the current blockade of its supplies in Pakistan has not affected its over 140,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan...its desperation exhibits that NATO has started feeling the heat of the blockade, local watchers believe.

Both NATO and Pakistan inked a controversial transit agreement in 2001 that allows "all kinds" of "customs inspection and tax free" supplies into Afghanistan. Local media reports suggest that the compromise agreement earns Islamabad some 1.5 billion dollars annually.

Over 70 percent of supplies and 40 percent of NATO's oil needs in Afghanistan are being supplied through Pakistan. Some 7,000 contracted truckers with NATO-paid private security responsible for convoys safety are involved in the project.

Taliban started attacking NATO supply convoys in 2008. They turned the heat on the next year with the intensified operation by Pakistani troops to wipe out a seven-year-old insurgency in the rugged northwest tribal areas. However, with the recent violation of Pakistani airspace, Taliban have unleashed a fury on NATO interests which still seems to be galloping unbridled, as local analysts speculate more fireworks in the coming days.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: U.S. Drone Attack Kills Nine In Pakistan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:21 am (PDT)

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/10/09/24991478.html

Voice of Russia
October 9, 2010

US drones kill 9 in Pakistan Friday

US drones struck at targets in Pakistan on Friday, killing nine.

The drones attacked residential homes in the province of North Waziristan, the homes that Islamic fighters used as hide-outs. The province borders on Afghanistan and is seen as a stronghold of Taliban.

The US Air Force is steadily escalating the intensity of strikes on Pakistan. NATO combat planes bombed various targets in Pakistan 20 times in September alone.

Washington ignores protests from the Pakistani authorities that insist that the country's sovereignty should be respected and that attacks killing civilians should be brought to a close.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: "Reset" And Missile Defense

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:25 am (PDT)

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/10/09/24564052.html

Voice of Russia
October 9, 2010

"Reset" and missile defence
Valentin Zorin

There was cause for much optimism when President Obama made the first steps towards a 'reset' in US-Russian relations by renouncing plans by his predecessor, George Bush, to deploy American missiles in close proximity to the Russian borders on the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic.

And it cleared the way for settling other important problems in bilateral relations. Preparations for signing a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty got off the ground at last, and the no-easy talks on the treaty eventually resulted in an agreement which was signed by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in Prague in May this year.

But as it became clear shortly afterward, the issue is far from simple. At the end of September Bucharest said it was getting ready to sign an agreement on the deployment of an American military base on the territory of Rumania. A similar base was to be deployed on the territory of Bulgaria. As it happens, Rumania will have the bases instead of Poland, and Bulgaria instead of the Czech Republic. But a change of location makes no difference as far as the end result is concerned. Given the situation, the American moves cause as much concern as before.

As he commented on them, Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said: "Russia and the US have discussed the issue of missile defense at length and agreed that there would be no anti-missiles in Poland or the Czech Republic. And all of a sudden, we learn that the missiles are being moved to other European countries. So where is the 'reset'?"

Among other questions which are brought up in connection with the missile defense program is how long the United States is going to drag its feet over ratifying the new START Treaty. Signed in May, the treaty was supposed to be ratified by the Senate by the middle of September. Now, as the first ten days of October are coming to a close, the opponents to the treaty are preventing the ratification from going ahead by linking it to missile defense. Senator Richard Lugar said a few days ago that the treaty should be supplemented with a special resolution stating that it imposes no restrictions on American plans to develop a missile defense system.

Mighty circles in the US have been doggedly pursuing a missile defense program ever since it was launched by President Ronald Reagan 25 years ago. And the intensity with which they are doing so stays unabated, despite substantial failures and losses. One the latest failures, which cost the US 120 million dollars, was reported recently, when an interceptor missile launched from an air base in Vandenberg, California, failed to hit a hypothetical target and exploded in mid-air.

Professor Richard Garwin, one of the founders of America's hydrogen bomb, indicated as he spoke in the Senate recently that the American missile defense system in its current shape was useless.

Auditors from a Washington-based audit agency came to an equally disappointing conclusion. They had to admit that missile defense experts had failed to achieve the results they were paid for and that a system they had built was totally ineffective.

The sums allocated for the missile defense program were huge beyond description. Experts estimate that one trillion dollars has been spent on it by now and it will require billions more if continued.

This explains why the masterminds of American missile defense have been so persevering in pursuing it regardless of common sense. Billions of dollars earmarked for missile defense have not been invested into space research as it was promised but landed in the bank accounts of those who have turned it into a gold mine. These people have a lot of weight in present-day Washington.

Whether the US policy makers will fall hostage to these mighty groups remains to be seen.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: NATO: No Military Cuts, Wars Abroad, Missile Shield 'Vancouver-Vladi

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:25 am (PDT)

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=131692

Azeri Press Agency
October 9, 2010

NATO Chief Warns Against Defense Cuts

Baku: NATO's top official is warning cash-strapped members to be wary of downsizing the alliance's military might, APA reports quoting "The Voice of America".

Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says many nations are facing tough choices as they try to recover from the global financial crisis. But he warned deep cuts will slash not only the "fat" of wasteful spending – they will cut "into muscle, and then into bone" of the organization.

Rasmussen made the comments during a speech Friday in Brussels about NATO's new strategic vision. Member nations are scheduled to finalize the new vision at a summit next month in Portugal.

The NATO chief says the alliance must streamline its command structure yet maintain the ability to carry-out major missions around the world.

He also says NATO should seek greater cooperation with civilian organizations as well as with other countries, including Russia.

Rasmussen says he envisions a missile defense system that extends from "Vancouver to Vladivostok."

But the relationship between NATO and Moscow has been increasingly tense since Russia's military overran Georgia's defenses in 2008.

Russia has also expressed skepticism over plans by the United States to expand a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, saying it would destroy the balance of power on the continent.

Rasmussen also says the new vision for NATO will provide the alliance with a blueprint for protecting the 900 million citizens of its member countries from the threats they will face in the coming decade.

He says those include cyber attacks that can take down a country's air traffic control system or cripple its economy, as well as terrorism and conventional military attacks.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.: America's "Afghan Trap" Enter 10th Year

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Oct 9, 2010 9:56 am (PDT)

http://rt.com/Politics/2010-10-07/afghanistan-war-us-anniversary.html

Russia Today
October 7, 2010

America's "Afghan trap" enters 10th year
Robert Bridge

When the US opened "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan following 9/11, few people questioned the decision. But today, after nine years of sacrifice, that attitude is changing.

By now, the history behind the start of the War in Afghanistan nine years ago is well-known: On the morning of September 11, 2001, the United States security apparatus was caught unawares by a massive terrorist attack that led to the death of more than 3,000 people in some of the best-protected real estate in the free world.

Indeed, the audacity of the attack was such that not a single US fighter jet was scrambled in the 1 hour and 42 minutes that it took for four hijacked commercial jets to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (Incidentally, in case future US history books fail to carry this heavy footnote, it must be added that not one US military officer or government official was reprimanded for what some would consider a dereliction of duty to protect American airspace from outside attack).

The blame for this unspeakable crime against humanity was immediately placed at the cave door of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. However, despite a mounting international manhunt made up of professional soldiers equipped with state-of-the-art hardware, Osama is still eluding the search party in the labyrinthine mountain ranges between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Osama's snake-like slipperiness makes it tempting to believe that this evil character, like some sort of Dr. No, is surrounded by a wall of computer terminals and video monitors deep in the heart of some fortified, carved-out-of-rock mountain complex. It is from here where the Islamic fundamentalist is secretly watching the world's every move, wringing his hands and laughing, especially when he releases yet another one of those frightful videos.

Now, with the Obama administration beating a slow retreat from Afghanistan, promising to be out of Dodge by July 2011, many are beginning to wonder if Osama bin Laden will really have the last laugh.

Has America fallen into the Afghan trap?

But the big question remains: how did the United States get itself so entangled in this bloody mess? After all, Washington could not have forgotten the heavy price the Soviet Union paid for mobilizing its troops against the "Graveyard of Empires," which humbled both the British and Soviet empires.

In 1998, US political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted in an interview with a French journal that the United States, in 1979, lured Soviet forces into the "Afghan trap" by supporting the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

"According to the official version of history," Brzezinski revealed in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, "CIA aid to the Mujahedeen began during 1980…after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan [in December, 1979]. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

Brzezinski told the US President that this aid "was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border into Afghanistan, where they would remain for almost ten grueling years, Brzezinski wrote to President Jimmy Carter: "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War."

So why did the United States decide to open a war in a land that, in Brzezinski's words, "brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

Lessons learned, lessons forgotten

Part of the reason for launching "Operation Enduring Freedom" (which, incidentally, was never legally sanctioned by the UN Security Council) without much concern for the long-term risks was partially due to the heady hubris the United States was suffering at the time 9/11 exploded on the scene.

It must be remembered that the US military enjoyed something of a cakewalk during George Bush I's Gulf War in Iraq (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991); coalition forces declared a cease-fire just 100 hours after the ground campaign started and about six months after Kuwait was liberated. And this was after Saddam Hussein had warned that the US would face "the mother of all wars" if it dared attack.

Then there was NATO's "surgical" bombardment of Yugoslavia (March 24, 1999 to June 11, 1999), which seemed to prove that war could be won from the sky with high-precision missiles. During the ten weeks of conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions; ground units were never activated, partially because the coalition wanted to minimize the risk of losing forces. Clearly, war had entered a whole new phase, and it looked as if the US military was unstoppable.

Next, the US military decided to move against the Taliban in Afghanistan on the charges that it was responsible for "harboring terrorists," specifically Al-Qaeda. It is on this point that history started to catch up with the United States, as it found itself suddenly fighting against its former protégés.

During Brzezinski's interview with Le Nouvel Obserbvateur, he casually dismissed the risk of training and arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, arguing that it was far more important to defeat the Soviet Union.

When asked if he had any regrets about supporting "the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists,' America's premier political strategist staunchly defended his actions.

"What is most important to the history of the world," Brzezinski asked, "the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

"Some stirred-up Muslims?" the interviewer questioned with surprise. "But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today."

Judging by the present hysteria over the threat of global (Islamic) terrorism, Brzezinski's response is nothing less than startling: "Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam."

According to the Council on Foreign Relations website, "During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan co-operated in efforts by the US Central Intelligence Agency to arm the anti-Communist Mujahideen. After the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan ceased to be a priority for US strategists." Today, many of those same individuals are taking up weapons against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

It must be admitted, however, that the United States got off to a better-than-expected start in Afghanistan: the odious Taliban was quickly routed, and Al-Qaeda's bases were dealt a heavy blow. It seemed like another easy victory for the Western coalition was in the works. But then the United States broke the first rule of warfare in March, 2003 when it opened a second front, this time in Iraq, against the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.

Not only did this throw off the military momentum in Afghanistan, but it cost the United States a huge amount of international support. But this did not seem to trouble the Bush administration much. After all, real superpowers have no need for support groups. It also did not help the reputation of the western intelligence community that not a single "weapon of mass destruction" was ever discovered in Iraq. Now, every time a soldier loses his or her life in Afghanistan, the US military gets part of the blame for taking its eye off the ball, recklessly invading Iraq "for its oil" while operations in Afghanistan continue to unravel.

Since 2006, the Taliban-led insurgency has enjoyed a comeback, while suicide attacks have dealt coalition forces a deadly blow. The single worst setback for US forces came in December, 2009, when an alleged Afghan informant detonated a bomb as he was being escorted into Forward Operating Base Chapman in eastern Afghanistan, near Khost. The attack killed seven agents.

Meanwhile, improvised explosive devices (IEDS), which the Afghans had turned into a devastating weapon in their war against the Soviet Army, have become the insurgency's primary weapon of choice. In January, 2010, military experts reported that Taliban fighters had developed a new generation IED that was practically undetectable because it had no metal or electronic parts.

According to a report by the US-based Homeland Security Market research, the number of IEDs used in Afghanistan has increased by 400 per cent since 2007, while the number of troops killed by these devices rose by 400 per cent, and those wounded by 700 per cent. Clearly, IEDs are the number one cause of death among NATO troops in Afghanistan.

As of October 1, 2010, there have been 2,049 coalition deaths in Afghanistan, with US fatalities numbering 1,234, according to the independent website iCasualties. The nation with the second-highest number of fatalities is Britain, with 338.

Trying times for nation-building

In the midst of increasing fatalities, as well as Barack Obama's "surge" of 30,000 additional troops, US attempts at democratic nation-building have been patchy at best.

For example, following a series of Taliban offensives across the nation prior to August elections, the Afghan government was forced to call for an international media blackout. The call came after at least 12 people were killed in more than a dozen bomb and rocket attacks across Afghanistan.

"All domestic and international media agencies are requested to refrain from broadcasting any incident of violence during the election process," a foreign ministry statement said.

Meanwhile, perhaps the most disturbing sign to come out of Afghanistan is that US forces are being drawn further away from the main theater of operations in a desperate search of the elusive Taliban. This is prompting the United States to increase the implementation of drone missile attacks against suspected terrorist hideouts – in Pakistan.

On Thursday, in the aftermath of a US helicopter attack that killed two Pakistani soldiers, Islamabad remained undecided as to when it would re-open a key border crossing NATO uses to transport supplies to Afghanistan.

US and NATO expressed their condolences Wednesday for the September 30 attack and said American helicopters mistook the Pakistani soldiers for insurgents being pursued across the border from Afghanistan.

Despite the tensions between the United States and Pakistan, the US military continues to launch missile strikes in Pakistan, specifically in the North Waziristan tribal region, where several militant groups are based.

On Thursday, US drones targeted a vehicle in a forested area near the town of Mir Ali, Pakistani intelligence officials told reporters.

The identities of the killed were not released, but the territory is believed to be controlled by Pakistani Taliban militants.

"The strike Thursday would be the fifth suspected missile attack this month, keeping up a recent surge in such CIA-run, drone-fired attacks," according to the Associated Press. "In September, the US is believed to have launched at least 21 such attacks, an unprecedented number and nearly all in North Waziristan."

The United States rarely acknowledges its covert drone missile program. In Pakistan, the strikes are officially condemned, yet grudgingly supported behind the scenes.

In light of these recent developments, which see the United States being pulled further afield in its efforts to pursue escaping insurgents, it should keep one crucial thing in mind that is regularly ignored in the Western media: unlike Afghanistan, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Before the actions of the United States prompts Pakistanis to elect a government that has far less patience for military incursions on its territory, better to show some restraint and draw the line at the Pakistani border. No need to incur the rise of another Ahmadinejad in the region – especially one with the capabilities that Pakistan now has.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)