Friday, January 16, 2009

Afghanistan: The Next Frontier

What's old will soon be new again.

Obama's promise of a 'surge' in Afghanistan as a new front in the world scam of the 'War on Terror' will be a desperate attempt to do what can't be done, occupy and control a county that doesn't want to be occupied. The violence will continue indefinitely or until we withdraw. Withdrawal is not an option at this time.

Using Afghanistan as a stepping stone to the future occupation of Pakistan and possibly Iran and the complete 'Balkinization' of the middle east is part of the plan for a 'Greater Israel' and US hegemony whose perceived and created enemies become divided and weak.


Of course we possibly can subdue Afghanistan by taking a hint from the 'shock and awe' of the early part of this war and in Iraq. We can fire bomb any village or town that defies occupation, just like in Gaza, and kill civilians by the score.

Will Obama risk alienating world opinion by escalating the death toll or will the world even care?

Pamela Constable of the Washington Post writes:

The planned U.S. military and counterinsurgency drive in Afghanistan is meeting public and official resistance that could delay and possibly undermine a costly, belated effort that American officials here acknowledge has a limited window of time to succeed.

The officials say they are optimistic that the planned addition of up to 30,000 troops, combined with a new strategy to support local governance and development aimed at weaning villagers away from Taliban influence, will show significant results within the year. They say improved cooperation from the army in neighboring Pakistan and better performance by the Afghan national army are bolstering this optimism.

Yet they also acknowledge that they face an array of obstacles, including: widespread public hostility to international forces over bombing raids and civilian abuses; the growing influence of Taliban insurgents in areas where central authority and services are scarce; and controversy over plans to establish village defense groups.

One conundrum, U.S. military officials say, is that the expanded forces will have to come in with heavy firepower and aggressive military tactics -- likely to create more civilian casualties and public animosity -- in order to secure rural districts so they can bring in services, aid and governance aimed at winning over the local populace.

"We don't want to give people false expectations. This is going to be a very tough year," said a U.S. military official here, speaking on the condition of anonymity. As American troops deploy throughout the south, where Taliban forces are strongest, he said, "you will see a very big spike" in armed clashes. Once areas are under control, "then we can bring in governance and development. But there will be some tough months of violence first."

American military officials here said they are keenly aware that they have a serious image problem and limited time to prove that bringing in more troops and weapons will not destroy the Afghan countryside to save it.

"We have made errors in the past, but now we are getting it right," a U.S. military official said.

When the mainstream press has hesitations in reporting a situation, you know we are in for problems. I don't even think the American military believes what it is saying.

The sideline of the narco-empire that Afghanistan has become under American occupation and its puppet regime is playing a big part in this surge.

American interests hate competition. Control of opium production and heroin refinement/distribution is a money maker that the central banks can't allow to fall into the hands of the locals.

Can America maintain these imperialistic endeavors without re-instituting the draft?

Obama's agenda contains proposals for universal service for the youth.

The draft is spoken about openly in Congress but more money will have to be spent for the obese draftees or volunteers in a pre-boot camp 'fat camp.'

A draft is a last resort. If people are anything like they were during the Vietnam war, the outcry will shake up the country. Most don't like being forced to kill and be killed.

The new administration's pentagon nominees are anxious to get going.

Michèle Flournoy, nominated for undersecretary of Defense for policy, said:

"I believe the Pentagon needs to “substantially plus-up our forces in Afghanistan,” and move to do that “as quickly as possible.”

Lobbists for the war industry are pushing for more contracts.

One of the key issues for the early strategy and program-budget reviews would be to determine the appropriate mix of F-22 Raptor fighter jets and the Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation fighter now in development.

Lockheed Martin, its subcontractors and congressional supporters have been lobbying heavily for more F-22s.

The media and the war criminals in government continue to try and make us believe that only by increasing the troops in Afghanistan and killing and subduing the population will we have peace.

War is peace you know. I read that in a prophetic book a long time ago.

Come January 20th the new president takes over and we're all going to be looking for that 'change.'

One thing for sure is going to stay the same.

Neverending war.

No comments:

Post a Comment