Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


China and Its Challenges




The Underground Girls of Kabul


Truthdig Bazaar
TunaFish

Thinking Tuna Fish, Talking Death

By Robert Scheer
Hardcover $13.16

more items

 
Report

Obama’s Afghan Trap

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 11, 2009

By Amy Goodman

  President Barack Obama on Monday night held his first prime-time news conference. When questioned on Afghanistan, he replied, “This is going to be a big challenge.” He also was asked whether he would change the Pentagon policy banning the filming and photographing of the flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he was reviewing it. The journalist who asked the question pointed out that it was Joe Biden several years ago who accused the Bush administration of suppressing the images to avoid public furor over the deaths of U.S. service members. Now Vice President Joe Biden predicts that a surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan will mean more U.S. casualties: “I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick.”

  Meanwhile, the Associated Press recently cited a classified report drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommending a shift in strategy from democracy-building in Afghanistan to attacking alleged Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

  And the campaign has clearly begun. Days after his inauguration, Obama’s first (known) military actions were two missile strikes inside Pakistan’s frontier province, reportedly killing 22 people, including women and children.

  Cherif Bassiouni has spent years going back and forth to Afghanistan. He is a professor of law at DePaul University and the former United Nations human rights investigator in Afghanistan. In 2005, he was forced out of the United Nations under pressure from the Bush administration, days after he released a report accusing the U.S. military and private contractors of committing human rights abuses. I asked Bassiouni about Obama’s approach to Afghanistan. He told me: “There is no military solution in Afghanistan. There is an economic-development solution, but I don’t see that coming. ... Right now, the population has nothing to gain by supporting the U.S. and NATO. It has everything to gain by being supportive of the Taliban.”

  Bassiouni’s scathing 2005 U.N. report accused the U.S. military and private military contractors of “forced entry into homes, arrest and detention of nationals and foreigners without legal authority or judicial review, sometimes for extended periods of time, forced nudity, hooding and sensory deprivation, sleep and food deprivation, forced squatting and standing for long periods of time in stress positions, sexual abuse, beatings, torture, and use of force resulting in death.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
  I also put the question of the military surge to former President Jimmy Carter. He responded: “I would disagree with Obama as far as a surge that would lead to a more intense bombing of Afghan villages and centers and a heavy dependence on military. I would like to see us reach out more, to be accommodating, and negotiate with all of the factions in Afghanistan.”

  Carter should know. He helped create what his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called “the Afghan trap,” set for the Soviets. This was done by supporting Islamic mujahedeen in the late 1970s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, thereby creating what evolved into the Taliban. Brzezinski told the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998: “What is most important to the history of the world? 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?” More than 14,000 Soviet troops were killed, and the Afghan toll exceeded 1 million. Osama bin Laden got his start with the help of the CIA-funded Afghan operation.

  Bassiouni suggests that a military solution is doomed to failure, noting that the Taliban “realized they could not defeat the American forces, so they went underground. They put their Kalashnikovs under the mattresses, and they waited. A year ago, they resurfaced again. They can do the same thing. They can go back in the mountains, push the Kalashnikovs under the mattress, wait out five years. They have been doing that since the 1800s with any foreign and every foreign invader.”

  As Carter told me, “To offer a hand of friendship or accommodation, not only to the warlords but even to those radicals in the Taliban who are willing to negotiate, would be the best approach, than to rely exclusively on major military force.”

  Have we learned nothing from Iraq?  “When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the president on another tried-and-failed policy.” That was Sen. Barack Obama in January 2007. With his Joint Chiefs now apparently gunning for more fighting and less talk in Afghanistan, President Obama needs to be reminded of his own words.
 
  Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
 
  Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

  © 2009 Amy Goodman

  Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By wadosy, February 18, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

ever heard of haim saban?

In an interview with Forbes Magazine Saban was asked how he thinks the Democratic Party could get back into the White House in 2008. Saban answered three times: “Vote for Hillary Clinton.”

Saban added that Clinton will be a great president and she has the best vision for the future of the United States.

Haim Saban supports Hillary for 2008 israeltoday

since hillary has “the best vision for the future of the united states” and haim saban is

a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel

....may we assume that hillary’s “best vision for the future of america” means that she is a one-issue gal, and that issue is israel?

saban’s a big wheel at the brookings institution, where daniel yergin is a trustee ...saban’s subdivision of brookings, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and brookings itself, is infested with israel-firsters, as would be expected in view of haim’s status as a “one issue guy…”


as mexican oil production continues to collapse, we should expect a growing influx of mexicans… because conditions in mexico will sink so low that america still looks like “up” to them.

it’s fortunate that haim saban bought univision, the biggest spanish-language television network in america… the better to manipulate mexican americans as america is looted to pieces in the final stages of the PNAC project, once israel is secured.

shades of the soviet union.

Report this

By wadosy, February 18, 2009 at 5:11 am Link to this comment

the whole thing starts making sense when you include global warming and peak oil in the situation… seeing as how israel has to be secured before america collapses from oil shortages and looting done by american oligarchs who see the peak oil handwriting on the wall.

it’s no secret that crude oil production has been flat for the last four years despite a doubling of drills since january of 2002.

it’s no secret that without the particulate emissions from emerging economies —emissions that shade the planet— we might be seeing global temps two degrees C higher than they are now, and it’s no secret that, if greenland and antarctica melt, we’d see an 70 or 80 meter rise in sea level, which would wipe out the 70% of the israeli population that lives on israel’s coastal plain.

so israel must be secured now, before the oil runs out, by either (1) grabbing control of the remaining oil and rationing it out to emerging economies, or (2) grabbing high ground, aka the palestinians land in the west bank…

…the basic problem being: particulates that shade the planet settle out in four or five years, but the co2 that’s causing the warming has an atmospheric lifetime of maybe 300 years.

israel needs to close hormuz and build pipelines from the persian gulf to israel in order to control energy flows to emerging economies… a last ditch effort to control global warming by controlling energy consumption…

…not to mention the fact that nobody in their right mind has much faith in the long-term survival of israel’s protector, america, because america’s been built from the ground up dependent on cheap oil… so peak oil is a threat to israel, at one remove.


if you compile a list of suspects for 9/11, using the traditional “motive, means, opportunity and character” parameters, you’ve got to put israel, the israeli americans of the AEI and their exxon allies at the top of the suspect list.

seeing as how netanyahu thought 9/11 was “very good”, seeing as how PNAC said, in september of 2000, that they needed “a new pearl harbor”, seeing as how PNAC signatories were installed in the 2000 election recount in florida —a state governed by a PNAC signatory and the brother of the president-elect— seeing as how the 9/11 oil acquistion project will be paid for by the american taxpayer instead of exxon —at a time when access to big oilfields is limited, and exploration and production costs are soaring…

…well, all that is indication of “motive” to stage 9/11, and once the PNAC signatories were installed in high government positions, they had “means, opportunity and character” galore.

historians will start looking for the truth some time or other…

…and they’re gonna have a hard time swallowing the official 9/11 conspiracy theory if they use the traditional parameters —motive, means, opportunity, and character— to figure out exactly what happened, especially in view of the fact that peak oil and sea level rise will have become painfully obvious as motives for starting a land and oil acquisition project.

the 9/11 operation was a necessity, to get the project started before the motives for starting the project became obvious.

motive, means, opportunity, and character

…and premeditation, as israelis and israeli americans have been agitating for decades to rearrange the middle east, and PNAC even confessed —a year before 9/11— that they needed “a new pearl harbor” to get their project started.

not to mention the fact that the prime deniers of global warming and peak oil are the AEI, exxon and CERA… the people with the most motive to deny that their motives for doing 9/11 exist.


now, that’s how the historians are gonna see it …and if that’s not what’s happening, it would behoove the israelis, israeli americans, exxon and their fellow travelers to stop behaving as if that IS what’s happening.

Report this

By wadosy, February 18, 2009 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

1982, israeli oded yinon recommends balkanizing muslim states, particularly iraq.

1992, paul WOLFOWITZ and scooter LIBBY, cheney’s convicted ex-chief of staff, produce a defense policy guidance paper. the paper was the first generation of what was to become PNAC and later official US foreign policy, and recommended attacking iraq. the paper was leaked to the new york times, and public outcry was such that wolfowitz’s paper was disowned and revised.

1996, richard PERLE and some of the usual likud israeli american suspects write a paper for bibi NETANYAHU calling for the occupation of iraq. the paper was entitled: “a clean break: securing the realm“… and the “realm” to be “secured” was israel.

1997, PERLE forms PNAC with nominal founders robert KAGAN and bill KRISTOL, and all the usual likud suspects, plus deathwish christian and corporate fascist fellow travelers.

september 2000, PNAC issues a document, “rebuilding america’s defenses”, calling for control of oil in the middle east and central asia. the document says that the military transition to enable that control will be slow to materialize without a new pearl harbor to mobilize america

september 2001, PNAC’s “new pearl harbor” materializes in the form of four hijacked airliners

september 2002, PNAC’s “rebuilding america’s defenses”, the document that called for the “new pearl harbor”, is adopted by the bunnypants administration as its National Security Strategy, in some cases, verbatim.

Report this

By wadosy, February 18, 2009 at 4:55 am Link to this comment

you are denying that the israeli americans of the AEI/PNAC are radical zionists, which must explain perle’s “a clean break: securing the realm”, the realm to be secured being israel, written for netanyahu in 1996 by perle and the usual assortment of likud radicals from the AEI.

you refuse to explain why most of the yukos oil oligarchs fled to israel.

is it not logical that these “international criminals”—whose zionism you refuse to acknowledge—would be concerned about preseving their refuge of last resort, which just happens to be israel?

you refuse to speculate as to why the israeli americans of the AEI and their exxon allies are the most prominent deniers of global warming.

you refuse to speculate as to why the israeli americans of CERA and their exxon allies are the most prominent deniers of peak oil.

you refuse to discuss the fact that a criminal will deny that his motive exists in an effort to escape being placed on the suspect list.

you refuse the apply the traditional “motive, means, opportunity and character” parameters when it comes to looking for 9/11 suspects.

you refuse to admit that the most likely suspects for 9/11 are the israeli americans of PNAC/AEI, especially once they were installed into positions from which they could make their hoped-for “new pearl harbor” happen—installed by an election recount in a state governed by a PNAC member.

you refuse to discuss the obvious: israel gave gaza back to the palestinians because gaza will be flooded anyhow… and israel keeps grabbing more palestinian land in the west bank because the west bank is high ground.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 18, 2009 at 12:56 am Link to this comment

Re wadosy, February 17 at 8:31 pm #


are we forgetting somebody…? yes, i think so…


“in 1997. PNAC was founded by radical israeli americans of the AEI, kristol and kagan.”

These people are imperialist propagandists who use Israel as a pretext for maintaining hegemony. 

“exxon started its overt support for the AEI in 1998.
in december of 2002, lee raymond, CEO of exxon,  was named vice-chairman of the AEI’s board of trustees.

in late 2003, khodorkovsky, the israeli russian boss of yukos, under threat of a crackdown by putin, attempted to sell yukos to exxon, still run by CEO lee raymond—-the same lee raymond who had become the vice-chairman of the board of the israeli american AEI think tank in 2002.”


              x x x x x x x x x x

I don’t really know why you call AEI or PNAC an “Israeli-American” think tanks instead of simply an imperialist think tank or a neocon think tanks.  Exxon chief exec Chandler is a member of AEI: does this means that he is being controlled by “Israeli Americans” or does it mean that the AEI represents the interests of western imperialism? 

“raymond retired from exxon at the end of 2005 with a $400 million dollar golden parachute (a bonus for his role in setting up the invasion of iraq?) and slid into his position as head of the National Petroleum Council in October of 2006.

raymond has lately disappeared from the AEI, and his disappearance may be an indication that the AEI is feeling some heat for its role in lying us into the PNAC oil acquisition project, not to mention the dawning suspicion that the AEI/PNAC outfit had something to do with staging 9/11.”


wadosy,

I hope it’s true that there is such a dawning suspicion.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 18, 2009 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

Way to go, wadosy.  Most people don’t know these linkages and I didn’t either.  If Zionism is linked with oil, than the question of which is dominate loses its urgency, their being allied.  Just as Zionism is allied with much of banking.

James Petras states that the Zionists marginalized Zbig, just as they did Carter, within the Obama regime.  But they could now be using his anti-Russian hatred.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 17, 2009 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Re wadosy, February 17 at 6:20 pm #

“why is israel pushing so hard for war with iran?”

Simply because Iran is the major roadblock remaining to U.S./Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. 

“why were israeli americans and israel so instrumental in lying us into war with iraq?”

Same reason they pushed for war with Iran - hegemony over the Middle East and its oil.

“why did bibi netanyahu think 9/11 was such a good deal?”

Because he’s part of this international gang of war criminals we’re talking about. No one doubts that Israelis such as Netanyahu are among the criminals we are seeking to identify. I question whether Israelis are the controlling interest, and whether ideological Zionism is really the motivation of those at the top, or whether at this level what you have is sociopathic criminals manipulating everybody.   

“why did russia suddenly become a villain when putin cracked down on the yukos oil oligarchs, most of whom fled to israel?”

Because the yukos oil oligarchs were serving the interests of the U.S. /Israeli military industrial complex and Putin kicked them up.

It seems that we recognize a similar nexus between the U.S. and Israel, but whereas I speak of the U.S./Israeli military-industrial complex, you speak of “Israeli-Americans”.

Report this

By wadosy, February 17, 2009 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

are we forgetting somebody…? yes, i think so…


in 1997. PNAC was founded by radical israeli americans of the AEI, kristol and kagan.

exxon started its overt support for the AEI in 1998.

in december of 2002, lee raymond, CEO of exxon,  was named vice-chairman of the AEI’s board of trustees.

in late 2003, khodorkovsky, the israeli russian boss of yukos, under threat of a crackdown by putin, attempted to sell yukos to exxon, still run by CEO lee raymond—-the same lee raymond who had become the vice-chairman of the board of the israeli american AEI think tank in 2002.

raymond retired from exxon at the end of 2005 with a $400 million dollar golden parachute (a bonus for his role in setting up the invasion of iraq?) and slid into his position as head of the National Petroleum Council in October of 2006.

raymond has lately disappeared from the AEI, and his disappearance may be an indication that the AEI is feeling some heat for its role in lying us into the PNAC oil acquisition project, not to mention the dawning suspicion that the AEI/PNAC outfit had something to do with staging 9/11.


if peak oil and global warming threaten israel, and if 9/11 was staged by PNAC signatories as the trigger for the AEI/PNAC/exxon oil and land acquisition project, and that project is intended to be the solution to peak oil and global warming, would that explain why the AEI and exxon are the most prominent deniers of global warming?

...would that explain why daniel yergin, CERA and exxon are the most prominent deniers of peak oil?

Report this

By wadosy, February 17, 2009 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

is brzezinski’s resurrection nothing more than an attempt to provide cover for israeli americans’ hatred of putin, whose dumping of the israeli russian oil oligarchs threw a huge kink in the PNAC project to remodel the middle east to israeli spec?

Report this

By wadosy, February 17, 2009 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

why is israel pushing so hard for war with iran?

why were israeli americans and israel so instrumental in lying us into war with iraq?

why did bibi netanyahu think 9/11 was such a good deal?

why did russia suddenly become a villain when putin cracked down on the yukos oil oligarchs, most of whom fled to israel?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

radson,

I agree. We are putting our heads together and comparing notes, trying to arrive at a clear picture. As Yoda said, “hard to see is the dark side of the force”. My point of view is not so Israel-centric as wadosy’s or Folktruther’s. I think we are dealing with really big-time international gangsters who are interested in nothing but power and money, and whose ethnicity, religion and nationality are irrelevant. Racists, religious fundamentalists and nationalists of every stripe are used by these totally cynical gangsters, who use every political and religious ideology from anti-Semitism to other racism to Zionism to every other kind of national chauvinism to Jewish, Christian and Muslim fundamentalism to keep people divided and at war. They are the international military-industrial complex, the lords of war, and as long as there is war, they rule. I think you can trace their roots in U.S. government back to the end of WW II when the military-industrial complex left in place at the end of WW2 joined with the CIA, which adopted many Nazis during its formative period beginning in 1946. By 1960 it had become powerful enough that Eisenhower warned the country against them in his famous farwell address in 1961, and ohly two years later, in 1963, they assassinated Kennedy with the blessing of LBJ. This shadow government has continued under all successive administrations until now. What I hope is that they overreached on 9/11 and that there is now such overwhelming scientific evidence available of what really happened that they can and will be exposed very soon now. That’s the best I have been able to sort it out so far.

Report this

By radson, February 16, 2009 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

To
Tony ,Wadosy and Folktruther
We have reached a moment of deep contemplation in this ongoing saga of world dominaton ,which by the way is most favorable to the wealthy regardless of who you support or denounce.

Report this

By wadosy, February 16, 2009 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

tony, i think you need a map of the project.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 16, 2009 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

Folktruther,

I have beeb called an anti-Semite just as much as you have, for having supported the positions of Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein, for advocating a One Democratic State solution to the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and for believing that 9/11 was an inside job. I have said that Jews must as soon as possible repudiate acts done by treasonous “Zionists” in their name. But I also have a very sensitive racism detector, and it starts to beep strongly in the vicinity of wadosy.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 15, 2009 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

Radson, I agree with PSmith, Zbig is a ravening anti-Russian who is willing to risk an nuclear war to pressure Russia.  His latest book, a dialogue, which I don’t have here anymore, demonstrates his pro-Israel ethnic cleansing bias among his many other militaristic positions.  He is to the right of Realist Gops.

Psmith, I like Peter Dale Scott too, a fanatical researcher and courageous truther.

Report this

By radson, February 15, 2009 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

To Folktruther

This discussion that you are involved in with the others ,should not revolve merely around Mr. Zbig.Although he was implicated

with the decision for initiating the so called Soviet Trap ,he was definitely not the only one in favor, it took a collective agreement

amongst many in the administration to forward the strategy that was approved and carried out.Mr. Zbig. was a major player ,but

today it seems that he is more of the Fall-Guy than anything else ,in order to maintain (what i refer to as reciprocal rhetoric) in the quagmire

which has become known as Afghanistan .I do realize that the US is not in Afghanistan just for Rugs and Drugs,that other tantalizing

objectives are there for the taking and the method for there’re grant is usually through immoral methods of oppressive coercion.The present players

involved are many ,because of the strategic location of Afghanistan ,hence geopolitics.Iran is the obvious country of dispute within this argument

because of it’s defiance not only towards the US but also Israel which feels threatened if they lose the so-called gunboat diplomatic advantage.The other questions

that remain focus on Russia and China where historically the Ruskies are always hard to bargain with,because they always demand an exorbitant return

for compliance.The Chinese on the other -hand have a Realpolitic reason for getting involved ,due in large part to their energy requirements and their unpredictability

as far as recent history is concerned with due regard to China’s quest in becoming a grand player on the global stage.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 15, 2009 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

I think wadosy is essentially right, that US foreign policy has been largely hijacked by Zionists, what he calls Israeli Americans. And I am not an anti-Semite; I’m a self-hating Jew. You have to get your Aipac terms right, Tony.  Of course to Inherit and other Israel Firsters, I’m both.

And Bryrzinski is, in his operative view, a Zionist, although his whole career is based on anti-Russia strategy.  His current anti-Russian polivy is probably the most dangerous of any available, so much so that many Gop Realists are against it. He is a ravening loony for supporting a first strike strategy.  As a byproduct he supports the US Zionist policy.

However, Tony, you are voicing the naive conventional Dem view, which is a step up for you.  Usually, you have a screw loose in your political analysis.  But your defense of Zbig is more reactionary then your defesne of his protege Obama, who hopefully will not follow his lead.

And nothing in wadosy’s arguements indicate that he is anti-Semitic.

Report this

By radson, February 15, 2009 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

Distant Friends.
In the fields the children are playing

sharing their laughter and smiles

while mama prepares the lunch

that will be shared by all

for food and drink is a celebration

preached by people of all nations

that gather daily for the feast

however humble it may be

Yet in the unblinking sky

there hovers a lie

that scans the ground

and all that is around

to search for a strike

with all it ‘s might

it is like a game

but filled with shame

for the results are unseen

but in reality obscene

what follows is a debrief

for the mission was a success

what a relief for the pilots who flew


Yet only one knew

the letter from the loved one who wrote

papa i have a friend

in a distant land

a place called Afghanistan

the one who wrote to me through the agencies

words are no more

can you please lend me a hand.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 15, 2009 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

By PSmith, February 15 at 9:36 am

I will check out your links, but “barking mad” seems to someone who has read his books and watched his public interviews such as myself to be far from objective. Demonizing Brzezinski is a cottage industry. As far as I can tell, his major sin is anticommunism. He was this country’s premier cold warrior and should be given credit for his successful geopolitical strategy in Afghanistan of provoking Soviet intervention, which certainly did accelerate the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time he regarded what he did to Afghanistan in the process as a minor matter. Now it has indeed come back to haunt him. He has said many times, and I really believe he means it, that the last thing he wants is for the U.S. to get trapped in Afghanistan like the Soviets.

I have been following Brzezinski for many years and He is no Zionist and no neocon; in fact he has been accused of anti-Semitism by Alan Dershowitz and other Zionists. He is by no means “right-wing zealot” but is actually a middle of the road Democrat. I support him as Obama’s best foreign policy advisor and the least likely to give him advice favoring Israeli over American interests.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 15, 2009 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

By wadosy, February 15 at 3:16 am #


...and the fact remains: if a mad dog is at my throat, i will stangle the dog before i go looking for its master.

it would be a good idea if israel quit driving these wars, dont you think? ...because they are exposing themselves as the force behind the wars, so we have to think israelis and israeli americans are responsible.

that’s just how it is.
it’s good to see you expose yourself.

thank you.

  x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

One of us has exposed himself, all right. But is it I who am exposed as an ADL agent, or is it you who have been exposed as an anti-Semite? That’s the question. Because there really are lots of them out there, and you are really beginning to sound like a refugee from the David Duke website.

You do Brzezinski no favors by associating yourself with him. He has wrongly been accused of anti-Semitism, and to have anti-Semites like you supporting him does him no good.

Report this

By wadosy, February 15, 2009 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

...and the fact remains: if a mad dog is at my throat, i will stangle the dog before i go looking for its master.

it would be a good idea if israel quit driving these wars, dont you think? ...because they are exposing themselves as the force behind the wars, so we have to think israelis and israeli americans are responsible.

that’s just how it is.

it’s good to see you expose yourself.

thank you.

Report this

By wadosy, February 15, 2009 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

it’s a pitful situation for you, but it looks like you’re an ADL guy, charged with the responsibility of herding all jews into the same dismal ADL box.

too bad some jews can think for themselves.

Report this

By wadosy, February 15, 2009 at 3:39 am Link to this comment

would you like to explain why israelis are so content to reinforce the idea that israeli jews and israeli americans are the driving force behind this idiocy?

are you saying that israeli americans and israelis are stalking horses for the real culprits?

do you think the rothschilds, for instance, think it’s a good idea for israel to attack iran?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 15, 2009 at 3:06 am Link to this comment

Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are not Jewish. I think the real perpetrators of 9/11 are happy to have people blaming “Jews”. This was a misdirection used by the Nazis to take power in Germany, and if the “Islamic terrorist” fable won’t stick, maybe next they willcan figure out a way to turn it around and blame it on treacherous Jews instead.

Jew, shmoo. This isn’t about that.

Report this

By wadosy, February 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher says…

“That’s an interesting and scary article. But I don’t see any particular connection with Israel or what you are calling “Israeli Americans” - which seems to be your word for Jews.”

apparently haaretz can tell the difference between an american jew and an israeli american…

“In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.”

White man’s burden

Report this

By wadosy, February 14, 2009 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

here’s a little list of israeli americans.

this appears in an article written by a jewish american, jim lobe

“Contrary to appearances, the neoconservatives do not represent a political movement, but a small, exclusive club with incestuous familial and personal connections.

What do William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family — an extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for generations.

Neoconservatives are former liberals (which explains the “neo” prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel.”

All in the Neocon Family

there’s a diffenernce between jewish americans and israeli americans.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

By wadosy, February 14 at 5:13 pm #

wadosy,

That’s an interesting and scary article. But I don’t see any particular connection with Israel or what you are calling “Israeli Americans” - which seems to be your word for Jews.

Report this

By wadosy, February 14, 2009 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher says:

“Our own corporations exercise this control, constantly disseminating disinformation provided by our intelligence services.”

and the agenda-setting news organization, the new york times, along with faux news and the rest of the zionist-owned american media, was at great pains to pass on every tidbit of disinformation that led to the war in iraq.

where did that disinformation come from? ...from chalabi, whose history with perle is indisputable…

...the disinformation also came from a little office in tel aviv, specifically set up by sharon to stovepipe disinfo past normal intelligence channels directly to the OSP, run by more radical israeli americans, who then fed this chickenfeed to cheney, rumsfeld and bunnypants, who could pass it on to the american public as justification for the iraq war.

not to mention that these same media organs were instrumental in helping the neocons in the bunnypants administration soldify the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory that would be laughable, except it’s already killed maybe a million people.

Report this

By flickervertigo, February 14, 2009 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

quaint of you to trot out accusations of antisemitism.

all you’re doing is confirming walt and mearsheimer’s assessment of the political situation in america.

ask mr scheer about his job at the LA times.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment

By wadosy, February 14 at 4:45 pm #


Tony Wicher says: “The objective was world hegemony and particularly hegemony over world oil resources, not fanatical Zionism, in my opinion…”


the israelis have got more to do with this than you seem to think.

        x x x x x x x x x x x xx

wadosy,

I think you’ve got it all wrong. In fact, I’m sorry to say, sound anti-Semitic. When you say “Israeli Amercians” you really mean Jews. If you substitute the word “Jews” for “Israeli Americans” in your last post, it sounds like you took the words right out of Mein Kampf. “The driving force behind this neocon project have been jews whose main goal seems to be the preservation of israel.” Hardly. That is just the pretext for U.S. hegemony, has been since the foundation of Israel. Nor do “Zionists” control the mainstream media. Our own corporations exercise this control, constantly disseminating disinformation provided by our intelligence services. The more I look into it, the more “Zionism” looks like one more red herring to me. Zionists, actual fanatical, believing Zionists exist and are a problem, just as fanatical, believing Islamists are a problem, but they are not the essence of the problem, and in fact, as I said, they are both being used by people who believe in nothing but money and power.

Report this

By wadosy, February 14, 2009 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

from the council on foreign relations foreign affairs March/April 2006…

“the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all.

At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.”

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy

Report this

By wadosy, February 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher says: “The objective was world hegemony and particularly hegemony over world oil resources, not fanatical Zionism, in my opinion…”


the israelis have got more to do with this than you seem to think.

israeli americans and their israeli… allies or controllers?... lied america into iraq.

israelis have a stranglehold on american politics and media, they’ve got the geography, there’s decades of evidence of israelis and israeli americans agitating to remake the middle east, israel has the cruise missiles that, judging from obama’s kowtowing to AIPAC, will drag america into any war started by those cruise missiles, israel has its nukes and its samson option, and finally, the israeli americans are striving for nuclear primacy, which will enable nuke first strikes on russia and china…

...in other words, we’re looking at a global “samson option” via “nuclear primacy”.


all of this against a backdrop of peak oil, which threatens israel’s protector and thus israel itself, at one remove…

...peak oil, which most likely was the triggering motive behind 9/11, seeing as how israel must be secured against sea level rise before its american armies run out of gas.

no doubt there are factions: some are looters who see the peak oil handwriting on the wall and just want to stack up enough loot to hide out until the dust settles, post oil.

some of them are devoted to preserving israel, because, as the yukos oligarchs demonstrated, israel is the refuge of last resort for radical jews who run afoul the authorities in their host country.

some are zionists who need to crash the american economy to disguise peak oil and its role as motive to stage 9/11, but that’s a tightwire act, because they have to crash the economy enough to destroy demand for oil—thus obscuring peak oil—but they have to ensure america remains strong enough to secure, support and protect israel.

but the driving force behind this neocon project have been jews whose main goal seems to be the preservation of israel.

peak oil and the inevitable collapse of israel’s american protector being the backdrop of the 9-11/PNAC/AEI/neocon operation.


graph: oil production, drills, and price

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Re Folktruther, February 14 at 1:02 pm #

“No one but fanatical Zionists support a major attack attack on Iran.  Which however may occur anyway under Obama, since he is supporting Zionist policy, continuing Bushite policies.”

        x x x x x x x x x x x x

As I see it, “fanatical Zionists” like some who post here or diehard settlers in the OPT are just sheep being led to the slaughter like the rest of us. Those in the know care about nothing but power - power and money. They would certainly have liked to overthrow the government of Iran and install a puppet regime; that was supposed to be Phase II after Iraq. The objective was world hegemony and particularly hegemony over world oil resources, not fanatical Zionism, in my opinion (I’m with Chomsky on that). What they found out in Iraq was that it isn’t so easy to do this; I guess they forgot about Vietnam. After the Iraq fiasco, it just made no sense to compound their folly by attacking Iran as well. Obama is not going to start a war with Iran; he opening up diplomatic communications with Iran and I expect to see a fairly rapid thaw in relations.

Afghanistan is where the rubber meets the road.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 14, 2009 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

Wadosy- Thank you for the link to the Jacobabad American air base.  Why do you say it is an Israeli air base?  I am merely asking, not disputing.  I can’t find anything that would support this.

Of course Zbig is not motivated primaily by Zionism. He is a cradle Pole, motivated by a hatred of Russia, on whcih he built his career. He is now in favor of including Ukcraine and Georgia into Nato, and setting up the first strike missile defesne in Poland and Checho.

But these are part of Israeli poicy as well,  to help get oil and gas from the Caspian sea to distribute to Europe. Military tension with Russia is part of Israeli-Zionist policy, and Zbig supports it.  It is opposed by Dem-Gop Realists, like Baker, etc. 

No one but fanatical Zionists support a major attack attack on Iran.  Which however may occur anyway under Obama, since he is supporting Zionist policy, continuing Bushite policies.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

Let me add this: I do not think it clarifies the problem to refer to this gang as “Zionist”. Zionism is just propaganda to justify continued hegemony over the Middle East. It has nothing more to do with Jews or Judaism than any other ethnic group, and is using Jewish people their as much or even more than any other group. This gang resembles nothing so much as Nazis, and I suggest to my Jewish friends, many of whom were (like myself) taught at an early age how to spot a Nazi that they should consider this and repudiate as soon as possible the things that treasonous “Zionists” do in their name.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

By wadosy, February 14 at 8:03 am #

one of these days we’ll have to start asking ourselves if the military is still under civilian control, and if it is, what civilians are controlling it.

maybe the ultimate travelling salesmen and women of the AEI have sold their ideas to the pentagon, and maybe it’s all over but the shouting.
     
              x x x x x x x x


wadosy,

Peering into the shadows, my guess is that it is primarily our intelligence agencies and private contractors rather than the military proper that have been operating outside civilian control for decades, since the Kennedy assassination and before. It is only the fact that the bulk of the military remains loyal that prevented an outright coup during the Bush administration. These intelligence agencies work together with contractors such as Blackwater (which just changed its name to “Xe”, pronounced “Z” - spooky, eh?), Halliburton, KBR, etc. They also work hand in hand with the Mob and international drug trafficers. They are the perpetrators of 9/11. Having lost the Presidency, they are lying low, waiting for their next opportunity. If it really looks like they are going to be exposed, they will launch another terrorist attack, and it probably will be much worse than 9/11, because it will have to decapitate the whole government this time. This probably means nothing less than nuking Washington, immediately putting into effect the COG (Continuity of Government) protocol and taking absolute control.

By far Obama’s biggest problem, bigger than the economy, is to purge these treasonous forces from our government. He is going to have to forge strong alliances with loyalists in the military to accomplish this.

Report this

By wadosy, February 14, 2009 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

it’s pretty interesting that feinstein spilled the beans on predator drones flying out of pakistan…

it makes sense that she’d spill those beans if the intent is to continue with the neocon project to dismantle pakistan, and it makes sense that she’d support the project to dismantle pakistan, since pakistan owns the only muslim nukes, and is no friend of israel… whether or not her revelation was sanctioned by obama… well, that’s the question.

so, despite all the denials, we’ve got this strange group of hangers at jacobabad, pakistan, a known israeli american base, and the new predators have plenty of range, speed and endurance to get from jacobabad to waziristan and still have tons of loiter time and time on target.

one of these days we’ll have to start asking ourselves if the military is still under civilian control, and if it is, what civilians are controlling it.

maybe the ultimate travelling salesmen and women of the AEI have sold their ideas to the pentagon, and maybe it’s all over but the shouting.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 12:51 am Link to this comment

Re freeyourmind, February 13 at 3:20 pm

Thanks for this post, I believe your data is accurate. It may be true that opium production fell during the period the Taliban were in power, but by now it seems like they are just one of the competing militias in the area. Some of the old warlords from the 80’s and 90’s like Hekmatyar are still around - and at this point they’re just a bunch of rival drug gangs, not much more, as far as I can see.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 12:39 am Link to this comment

Re wadosy, February 13 at 2:15 pm #


folktruther says,

“Under the influence of, among others, Zbig Bryrzinski, a mentor of Obama.  In the GREAT CHESSBORAD he developed a (disastrous) strategy for the US to military invade the ‘Stans to control central Asia.  Obama may well be influenced by the crazy military adventurism.”

brzezinski is warning against a troop buildup in aghanistan, and he’s warning against an invasion of pakistan.

brzezinski is also dead set against attacking iran.


all this emphasis on brzezinski seems to be an effort to deflect blame for this fiasco from the real perpetrators, who are the israeli americans of the AEI.

so, if there’s a massive buildup in afghanistan, an invasion of pakistan, and an attack on iran, we’ll know who to blame, wont we?

and it wont be brzezinski.

          x x x x x x x x x x x

wadosy,

Thank you, thank you! Finally some facts to counter Folktruther’s totally non-fact-based fulminations. He takes them right out of his hat one after another. Yes, these are all things Brzezinski has said repeatedly. Brzezinski is not an idiot and neither is Obama, but Folktruther is another matter.

The way I see it, Brzezinski is not a neocon or a Zionist. Zionists and neocons opposed him and accused him of anti-Semitism. his influence will help to shake the grip of the Israel lobby and correct the pro-Israel bias of U.S. policy. His anti-Soviet geopolitical strategy did create this mess in Afghanistan, and now, ironically, it falls to him to figure out how to get out of the mess he made. If anybody wants to avoid being hoist on his own petard by getting bogged down in Afghanistan like the Soviets did, it’s Brzezinski.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Re Folktruther

“Of course there is a a major difference between the Taliban and Al Qaida.  The former is a nationalistic movment by the Pustans, and the latter is the international Muslims assembled by the US initially to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.”

          x x x x x x x x x x

Folktruther,

I thought we agreed that the Taliban were organized and brought to power in Afghanistan by the Pakistan ISI. I don’t see where they are much more “nationalistic” or truly representative of the people than “Al Qaeda”. There are Pashtun tribesmen with local concerns who are being labeled “Taliban”. But where is the leadership? Where is Mullah Omar? Hanging out somewhere in Pakistan, no doubt, under ISI protection.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 14, 2009 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

By Folktruther, February 13 at 9:59 am #

But Obama is a PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN.  His primary purpose is to manipulate power influences to get elected next time.  He may have personal likes and dislikes but these must be mobilized to a central objective, maintaining and increasing his own power.

Which requires him to EXPAND the Afghan war to Pakistan.  Because they are losing too fast, and this must be slowed down enough so he can get elected next time.

Your political hopes and desires are in direct conflict with political reality. I’;m sorry. You can continue to deny reality or simply acknowledge that things did not work out as you Hoped.  For Change it is necessary to OPPOSE Obama’s policies, not support them.
            x x x x x x x x

Folktruther,

Excuse me, but you have absolutely no justification for saying the Obama administration “did not work out as I had hoped” only three weeks into it. Isn’t that much too hasty? I think he’s done pretty good job so far, and I continue to think he’s FAR too smart to get bogged down in Afghanistan, which incidentally would be the surest path I can think of to a one-term presidency anyway. Bush wanted to be a wartime president. Obama doesn’t. The American people are sick of war, sick of Bush’s lies. They are waking up.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 13, 2009 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

Quite right, Free.  Afghan opium was taken across the border to be processed into heroin in Turkey by US military planes, according the the Egyptian writer Eric Lindburg.  Now labs have increased in Afghanistan and are increasing in Iraq.  Afghanistan now suppllies 93% of the world’s heroin.  Eight thousand tons of opium wwere grown last year in Afghanistan.  Karzai and his brother are the biggest distributers.

Report this

By freeyourmind, February 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The drug trade restored by the US puppet regime! While oil and oil pipelines out of the Caspian     sea basin were undoubtedly a factor, the bombing   of Afghanistan also served to restore the multi billion drug trade, which is protected by the CIA. Immediately following the installation of the US puppet government under Prime Minister Hamid Kharzai,  opium production soared, regaining its historic levels.  According to the UNDCP, opium cultivation increased by 657% in 2002(in relation to its 2001 level) In the immediate wake of September 11, the price of opium in Afghanistan increased three-fold. By early 2002, the price was almost ten times higher than in the year 2000. Its called the Afghan Golden Crescent drug trade and it represents approximately one third of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics. The UN estimates about 500 billion a year.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 13, 2009 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

Writer—it is true that the fraudulent War on Terrorism has a broader constituancy than Israel.  It benefits, war industry, the oil industry, the bankers who lend to them and hold their stocks, and the ruling class who like war because it mobilizes the population around the power system that they control.

But the War on Terrorism was born in a Jerusulem conference in 1979, consisting of high governement officials, including the Israeli premier and Bush 1. And the false flag operation that initiated it, the 9/11-anthrax homicide, had documented Mossad and Zionist involvement.  The CHIEF beneficiary of this endless War was Isreali imperialism and ethnic cleansing.

Why on humanity’s formerly green earth should the US be involved in an endless war against Muslims?  that’s crazy.  The US has Muslim client-states and can buy oil on the open market.  It is not only against the interests of the US population, IT IS AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE US POWER SYSTEM!  the hatred of a billion and a half Muslims makes it more difficult to maintain US puppets in power.

It doesn’t make any sense at all unless it is posited that American foreign policy has to some extent been hijacked by Zionism.  The Walt and Mearsheimer thesis, previously developed by John Petras.  American irrationality is largely the consequence of the US power system serving the interests of Israel, rather than US power interests.  There is no other compelling explanation.

Report this

By wadosy, February 13, 2009 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

folktruther says,

“Under the influence of, among others, Zbig Bryrzinski, a mentor of Obama.  In the GREAT CHESSBORAD he developed a (disastrous) strategy for the US to military invade the ‘Stans to control central Asia.  Obama may well be influenced by the crazy military adventurism.”

brzezinski is warning against a troop buildup in aghanistan, and he’s warning against an invasion of pakistan.

brzezinski is also dead set against attacking iran.


all this emphasis on brzezinski seems to be an effort to deflect blame for this fiasco from the real perpetrators, who are the israeli americans of the AEI.

so, if there’s a massive buildup in afghanistan, an invasion of pakistan, and an attack on iran, we’ll know who to blame, wont we?

and it wont be brzezinski.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, February 13, 2009 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Folktruther,

We might agree that there has been a systematic effort on the part of America’s leaders to conflate terrorism and Islam. But claiming that this only serves what you call Zionist imperialism, is painting with too broad a brush. The war on terror benefits a lot of people who can’t scare up a rat’s ass when it comes to some patch in the desert. It is just the latest application of the time-tested method of using fear to manage public opinion. This one is particularly easy to sell since it appeals to a latent racist sentiment, which as far as I can tell, is shared by Jew and non-Jew alike.

With the fall of the Soviet empire, terrorism has become the rising star of the military/intelligence industries. Just say the words ‘dirty bomb’ and the public coffers open up like Ali Baba’s treasure. Before you know it, 40 well-healed thieves are standing in line to get their hands in the pot.

Of course, none of this means that the Taliban are innocent. I for one, was glad to see them go. But the current problems in Afghanistan run deeper - they date back to the splitting of the Pashtun (sp?) region by the British, who probably spent all of a day and half drawing up the boundaries. These problems aren’t going to be solved with tanks and drones. But the problems of venal politicians, and their constituents who rely on military related jobs, will.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 13, 2009 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

Tony- It hurts me to see your posts on truthdig.  It destroys my Faith in the American people to think staight.  Try to get a hold of yourself, sit back in your chair, there is nothing uncertain here to get you nervous.

Of course there is a a major difference between the Taliban and Al Qaida.  The former is a nationalistic movment by the Pustans, and the latter is the international Muslims assembled by the US initially to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

Under the influence of, among others, Zbig Bryrzinski, a mentor of Obama.  In the GREAT CHESSBORAD he developed a (disastrous) strategy for the US to military invade the ‘Stans to control central Asia.  Obama may well be influenced by the crazy military adventurism.

But Obama is a PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN.  His primary purpose is to manipulate power influences to get elected next time.  He may have personal likes and dislikes but these must be mobilized to a central objective, maintaining and increasing his own power.

Which requires him to EXPAND the Afghan war to Pakistan.  Because they are losing too fast, and this must be slowed down enough so he can get elected next time.

Your political hopes and desires are in direct conflict with political reality. I’;m sorry. You can continue to deny reality or simply acknowledge that things did not work out as you Hoped.  For Change it is necessary to OPPOSE Obama’s policies, not support them.

Report this

By Leibniz08, February 13, 2009 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes lets remind ourselves also of other words by Obama, lest we be further deceived by this sophist. Remember Obama called for the the bombing of Pakistan during the Presidential campaign in the early summer 2007! This means that Obama always intended preemptive war in the region to which January 22, 09 Obama’s drones bombed and killed in Pakistan. His first blood!

Also consider that when Obama first called for the bombing of Paksitan, Bush, Cheney & Clinton initially rejected this tact. Recognize there are analyst who say that the bombing of Pakistan by the Bush Administration most likely came from the orders of Robert Gates and the Principles Committee, that in essence Bush & Cheney had been neutralized by Gates much earlier.

Further destabilization of the region has always been Obama’s MO, Modus Operandi, as he carries out the Brzezinski version of the ‘Great Game’, to which this summer’s attack on Russia, by another CIA/Soros puppet Saakashvilli, is part of such insanity that makes the real Brzezinski world view, not the smokescreen of his books. Robert Gates of course is another protege of Brzezinski. He is not Neocon but rather of this much more sinister network of Brzezinski, who in essence bequeathed to the world the clash of civilizations.

Of course we must not get caught in the trap of believing that the Taliban or the CIA’s Al Qaeda are any threat, other than being patsies for the phony war on terror.

Report this

By IP Khalifah, February 13, 2009 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is all trash Recycling Projectz(maumen killing-muslims bribing-aramcp ET) by Obama Mafia for NOW

Report this

By wadosy, February 13, 2009 at 6:12 am Link to this comment

replacement link for haywire link below: google image search: neocons’ new map

Report this

By wadosy, February 13, 2009 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

given neocon ambitions to establish benevolent global hegemony through control of energy and energy transportation routes, it’s really kinda hard to view any oily place as a “trap” ...seeing as how the neocons would have gone into SW asia no matter what.

the chinese have sweetened the pot, though—or if you prefer to think in terms of “traps”, they’ve dropped a big chunk of bait—at gwadar with their “plans” for a pipeline terminus, LNG and oil tanker port, and refinery... and they’ve dropped another hunk of bait that extends the full length of pakistan, that bait being a pipeline from iran through pakistan to china along the KKH highway.

so, if you want to look at this operation from the “trap” angle, you can say that china spent $200 million on gwadar, installed a handful of cranes, and lured the israeli americans into spending trillions on an opertation to “thwart” the chinese project.

uh huh.

meanwhile, china is the israeli americans’ biggest competitor for energy… and it’s way too bad that china can buy the stuff faster than israeli america can steal it.

Report this

By wadosy, February 13, 2009 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

map: operation enduring turmoil

peters’ map: necons’ map of the new middle east and SW asia

google image search: neocons’ new map

google search: peters neocon

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 12, 2009 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Re Folktruther, February 12 at 9:58 am #

Folktruther,

We are in agreement about the relationship between the ISI and the CIA. That is what I meant by saying they have always worked together. That’s why I keep saying that there isn’t much difference between the Taliban and Al Qaida. It’s obvious that Al Qaida led by bin Laden and the Taliban led by Mullah Omar have been in it together from the start.   

Yes, Johnson said he didn’t want to be the first president to lose a war. But Vietnam was his war. And Johnson resigned over the war, he was not re-elected. If Obama is very foolish, he will make Afghanistan his war in the same way. But I really do not think he will. Brzezinski, one of Obama’s chief foreign policy advisors, has said repeatedly, loudly and clearly that he does NOT want the US to fall into the same Afghan trap that he set for the Soviets. If we are right, and the whole Afghan mess is being kept going by CIA and ISI which are making huge profits turning Afghanistan into a narco-state, I think this will conflict very sharply with Obama’s political objectives. We’ll see what happens. I’m on the edge of my seat.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 12, 2009 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Tony, it is true that the Taliban is the creation of the Pakistani ISI, but the ISI is largely dependant and controlled by the CIA.

The loss of Pakistan would lose the election for Obama.  Not because the American people care anything about Pakistan, but they can be made to care about LOSING, and the Gops and Gop media would attack Obama for losing.  That is largely why Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam.

Report this

By richard east, February 12, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

If only there we more Amy Goodmans in the media, Patrick Leahys in the Senate, and Dennis Kuciniches in the House.

I agree copmletely with you Tony…the restoration of our republic is possible. However, I can’t help but be reminded of Jack Nicholson’s infamous lines in “A Few Good Men.” Can the American public (at large) handle the truth? Ignorance is bliss, after all.

Change? (sigh)

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, February 12, 2009 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

Thank you, Tony.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 11, 2009 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

By Paul_GA, February 11 at 8:15 am

The American empire will soon die—probably in the mountains of Afghanistan. Question is, will we also see the demise of what’s left of the American republic?

The empire I can do without; the republic needs reviving, no matter what it takes
               
            x x x x x x x

If the truth of what really happened on Sept 11, 2001 comes out, the Republic will be restored. There are still enough honest Americans left both in and out of government to turn the tide. Call your your senators to support Patrick Leahy’s proposal for a truth and reconciliation commission. Call for an honest forensic investigation of 9/11. Visit the 9/11 Truth websites and get informed.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 11, 2009 at 11:30 pm Link to this comment

By Folktruther, February 11 at 1:08 pm #

If Obama lost it in the next four years, he would have difficulty getting re-elected.
        x x x x x x x x x

Folktruther,

Why in the world would that be? You think the American people give a damn about Afghanistan? Bringing the troops home would be cheered.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 11, 2009 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment

“Carter should know. He helped create what his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called “the Afghan trap,” set for the Soviets. This was done by supporting Islamic mujahedeen in the late 1970s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, thereby creating what evolved into the Taliban.”

            x=x=x=x=x=x=x

“Thereby creating what evolved into the Taliban??” No, thereby creating what evolved into Al Qaida, which means “the Base” which actually refers to the CIA’s database of Mujahedeen fighters against the Soviets and the Soviet-backed Afghan government. The Taliban, on the other hand, are primarily the creation of the Pakistan ISI. They have always worked together.

Report this

By Bob In Pacifica, February 11, 2009 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama is not in charge. Robert Gates was left behind to keep an eye on things for the military-industrial complex.

Report this

By Folktruther, February 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

There is no way to ‘win’ the war in Afghanistan-Packistan, since the pipelane from the ‘Stans to the Arabian sea is long dead.  The problem, however, is losing it, since it would discredit the US power system which purports to be a Superpower based on its extremely expensive military, trained and equipped to fight the wrong wars. If Obama lost it in the next four years, he would have difficulty getting re-elected.

So what the Amereican people must do is not concentrate on this war, but oppose the whole War on Terrorism that has been ideologically foisted on the American people by Zionism to legitmate the war against Muslims.  It serves Israel’s imperialist interests, not that of the US, and and this must be part of the US repudiation of Zionist war, neoliberalism and policism. 

There must be a general repudiation of the ideological counter revolution imposed on the US by the Bushite administration and continued by Obama.  this could include an anti-Zionist movmment agaisnt the bankers, militarists, and police state enthusiasts who are increasing the power inequality of the American people relative to our power structure.

Such a combative anti-Zionist programa, which sharply distinguishes between Jewish and Christian Zionnism and anti-semitism, would draw support from both the left and right.  And if it emphasized jobs and economic security, it would give substance to the ideas of power to the people.

Report this

By Harvey, February 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yanks go home—stop killing poor destitute people in a far off lands with bombs and missiles and contaminating our World with Depleted Uranium.

Report this

By diamond, February 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

From the start the case of Afghanistan has had the characteristics of a witchhunt, which one commentator has described as, ‘First the sentence -then the verdict’: this is a quote from ‘Alice in Wonderland’. The way a witchhunt works is that once you’re accused you’re guilty and no matter what happens you will burn. The Taliban are human beings, not monsters, and they can be negotiated with. It’s the same old story, this loopy idea that you only talk to your friends. What good will that do? To end a war you have to talk to your enemies, who you’ve made your enemies by invading their country and killing their wives, fathers, sons, daughters, grandfathers, brothers. Not only have you blown them up, indiscriminately with no idea whether they belong to the Taliban or sympathize with their ideas, but you’ve, as Rumsfeld put it, ‘scooped up 10,000 people’ (among them a shepherd in his nineties according to the DOD documents) many of whom ended up in the torture camp known as Guantanamo Bay. If you believe the FBI (I don’t and would never believe a word they uttered) but if you do, the people on those planes on 9/11 were Saudis and Pakistanis. There was not one Afghan there that I know of. So, the invasion of Afghanistan was about something else and the proof is how quickly they left and invaded Iraq, their real target, where there was lots of lovely oil. As Rumsfeld said in a rare moment of honesty ‘There are no good targets in Afghanistan’.

And now it’s all about saving face. The British, in particular, are very iffy about letting it be known that the west has been defeated by some bearded men in dresses. And it’s a sore point with them because in the 1800’s they got their imperial British backsides kicked by those same bearded men in dresses and withdrew from Afghanistan in disorder. The Americans have done a lot more damage, of course, setting up a corrupt puppet government which only controls Kabul while the rest of the country has nothing: no roads, no hospitals, no nothing. If the government in Kabul wasn’t made up of a corrupt bunch of bandits the people of Afghanistan would have taken a few tottering steps into the 21st century instead of being plundered and/or ignored by their own government. This is, of course, the American model. If the Kabul government had done its job and used some of its funds to build infrastructure to improve the lives of its citizens, the Taliban would have very quickly become yesterday’s men. Instead they have become heroes to the frightened, the impoverished and the ignorant. The Afghan masses, in other words - who in the present circumstances will cling to anyone who has a gun and knows how to use it. Afghanistan’s present ruler used to work for an oil company. No surprises there. Obama is getting advice along the lines of ‘First we have to defeat the Taliban and then we can build roads,schools and hospitals’. If the Afghan people were on your side you wouldn’t have to worry, they would kill them for you. But you’ve given them no reason to side with you and lots of reasons to hate you. In a way all the lies and deceit of the ‘war on terror’ are illustrated by what has happened to Afghanistan. And still the uniformed buffoons refuse to learn the lessons of history.

Report this

By NYCartist, February 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When is an interviewer being too polite?  I wondered how the toughest journalist I’ve been listening to, with Pres. Carter on “DemocrayNow”, today would ask a question about foreign policy in Afghanistan when Mr. Carter was President.  I have been listening to Amy Goodman on WBAI for almost 20 years or so.

I like to read comments.  There was someone linking Afghanistan in time with Vietnam as a U.S. military adventure.  While it’s being repeated a lot that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die, it could be true. 

I am not clear on the “building democracy” part of the diaglogues.  I’m reading “Nemesis” by Chalmers Johnson.  I’d like Amy Goodman to reinterview Johnson on the U.S. military, now in re Afghanistan.

Report this

By coloradokarl, February 11, 2009 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

Afghanistan has nothing to do with Bin Ladin, this is just a focus point for the American people. This is really about the shaky flakey state of affairs in Pakistan. It’s not oil, it’s the Nuclear Weapons. There is a REAL possibility of Extreme right wing religious zealots getting control of the Government in the next five years. The mountainous region the two countries share is a country to it’s self and as such neither have any real control over the politics of the region. Obama needs to buy the opium production for a high market value and insure some good will by assisting the farmers towards new and profitable crops. Money talks to these tribal people. This will cut off the cash flow to the Taliban and create the tension required to bring the people BACK to our reality. An economic downturn in Pakistan from this global economic fiasco would be the absolute worst thing possible and should be averted at ANY COST. If anyone thinks it’s bad now just think what would happen if a Nuke went off !

Report this

By 99jonny100, February 11, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

to Radson: Your posts are informative and well written, but unfortunately your
analysis is somewhat flawed. We all know war is not the answer,
but what is not the question? NOTHING but OIL. These are the 21st century OIL
WARS. Now even Russia is jumping back into the fray, to help US and “Nato”
(=US) plunder the region. After the oil runs out, it will be water and food that
drive the “developed” nations to commit genocide on the have-nots. Witness
the scramble in Africa to grab natural resources by fomenting and abetting
local wars, as millions are starving to death as of this moment, aided and abetted
by the “western” powers and a complicit United Nations. This is today’s paradigm.
Obviously you are intelligent and informed, but why deny the obvious? You
should be able to see that 9/11 was executed by the Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld
gang, just to get the ball rolling. Smarten up, wise friend.

Report this

By 99jonny100, February 11, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Dear Amy Goodman,
I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, and your fearless opposition to
the wrong- headed policies and human rights abuses by our present and past “neocon” governments. As you implied in this article, Pres. Obama’s strategy in
the Middle East bears a striking resemblance to that of the Bush camp.
I understand that writing, commentating and reporting, via Democracy Now
are your stock and trade. On the other hand, as I have repeatedly asked others
on several posts, including international channels, what are we going to DO
about the atrocious actions of Bush/Obama white house? We can talk or write
until we run out of breath, attempting to enlighten or “wake up” the American
populace; but Joe 12-Pak and other American sheep still don’t care if Obama"s first day in office brought
a drone missile strike in Afghanistan, murdering innnocent children and mothers. They still believe we should bomb Arabs back to neolitihic times.
In this open letter, I ask you again, since I don’t know an answer: What ACTION
should be taken to remedy the neo-fascist trend in our American government?
I am thankful for your input, but even you can write and talk ad nauseum
without proposing any solutions “on the ground”. A true revolutionary must put forward a pragmatic goal. What is yours?

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, February 11, 2009 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

The American empire will soon die—probably in the mountains of Afghanistan. Question is, will we also see the demise of what’s left of the American republic?

The empire I can do without; the republic needs reviving, no matter what it takes.

Report this

By universe1, February 11, 2009 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bubbas’ 5 words speak volumes ~

Report this

By cacatua, February 11, 2009 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

A message from the past:

“When you’re wounded an’ left on Afghanistan’s plains,
An’ the women come out to cut up your remains,
Just roll to your rifle an’ blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”

Rudyard Kipling

Report this

By radson, February 11, 2009 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Hello Truthdiggers i have sent 3 comments,but unfortunately there not in the proper order.Read the last one first then the middle one followed by the first one last.Sorry for the mix-up

Report this

By radson, February 11, 2009 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

When capturing Bin Ladin failed , they decided to vent their anger on the Taliban and the majority of the afghan

people, very nearly starving millions of them in the process, luckily humanitarian organizations averted the disaster.Secondly the White

House hawks surmised that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved with the sept. 11 attacks , and joined forces with Prime Minister

Anthony Blair to spread the lies of Weapons of Mass Destruction.Hence leading to the invasion of Iraq and worsening the immense suffering

of a people already in dire straits due to a decade of ghastly sanctions and embargoes.Lastly the Iranian question comes to the forefront

and is probably one of the key reasons why Nato is in Afghanistan. The so called Axis of Evil concocted by the Bush administration

to increase pressure on the defiant Persian people with the attempt to coerce them to toe the American line and submit to US business interests

reached a stalemate, due in large part to Iraqi resistance.Canada and the Nato allies role in Afghanistan was to stabilize the country and

eliminate the militant threat, which they have succeeded to a certain extent, but the revolving problem yet exists, which is the safe haven

offered to the insurgents by the Pakistani´s and most probably by illicit financing through the ISI. Yes it is true that Nato has gained the

support of a large number of afghan citizens, but unfortunately the longer we occupy their country animosity towards our presence will only

increase.Having so many Nato participants in Afghanistan ,including the occupation forces in Iraq has the Iranians almost surrounded ,which

will only lead to a higher level of anxiety, promoting a negative situation whereby a minor incident could be blown out of proportion.The reality

remains ,that if one Nato country is attacked ,then it is considered an attack on all the members. Gunboat diplomacy is not the solution for

a peaceful settlement in either Afghanistan or Iran, hopefully the new White House administration will be more diplomatically orientated,if not

then the status quo will remain the same. Afghanistan is going to have to deal with it´s own citizens,historically they often had a sort of tribal

coalition governement ,it may not be perfect but then again neither is the currant situation.

Report this

By radson, February 11, 2009 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

The US administration blamed the Iranians for the tragedy and bestowed combat action medals for the gallantry displayed by the

Vincennes crew. Slowly but surely a hornets nest was being opened. The Iranian, Iraqi war ended in 1988, but the war in Afghanistan continued

to drag on until 1989, as the last soviet troops withdrew across the Amu Darya river. Support for the afghan fighters by the US and Saudi

governments was nevertheless maintained until jan.1st 1992, that being the date that Mikhail Gogbachev pledged to cutoff support for

the Najibullah regime. On the 2nd of august 1990 the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait, which in turn led to the allied response to liberate Kuwait

from the Iraqi aggressors.Afterwards what transpired was the no fly zone restrictions and a most abhorrent oil for food program which led to the

death of an estimated half million Iraqi children much to the nonchalance of Madeleine Albright. Meanwhile in Afghanistan the militant hornets

were really buzzing, every misdeed committed by the US only increased their desire for revenge and swelled their ranks.In Afghanistan

Osama Bin Ladin was busy farming at Tarnak, sowing the seeds of retaliation on an unprecedented scale, while in the White House

President Clinton was flirting, apparently working on his oral skills,perhaps preparing for an important speech, which indeed did come to

pass. President Clinton´s advisers decided that a distraction would alleviate his predicament , so President Clinton went on a bombing

spree. Needless to say more gas on the fire.Unfortunately all these actions or perhaps inactions led to the cascading disaster which is world

renown as September 11. President Bush inherited a mess from the Clinton administration and instead of improving the situation the Bush

advisers preached a foreign policy that only degenerated the entire affaire,which today is being felt by the entire world.Returning to the

prominent question of why Nato is in Afghanistan and whether Nato should stay or pull-out in the not so distant future ,a further look

at certain events must be taken into account.First the Bush administration went on a rampage trying to hunt down Bin Ladin and the

perpetrators of slept.11.

Report this

By radson, February 11, 2009 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

Afghanistan is a topic that keeps reemerging ,It represents uncertainty,anxiety

and sorrow to many among us, yet at the same time it represents hope and the possibility of a better future for the Afghan people.Nevertheless

the predominant question remains ,what are we doing there and what purpose is our military presence and that of our allies actually

trying to achieve. In order to answer the question why Nato is in Afghanistan, a careful analyses of what transpired prior to our involvement must be understood. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in dec. 79 with dubious objectives of their own.

President Jimmy Carter along with national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski come out with the brilliant idea of creating a sort of

Viet-nam for the soviet invaders,whereby the US would supply the afghan holy warriors with all sorts of weapons and plenty of cash,

but the catch was the need for a safe operating haven, somewhat like Laos, Cambodia. The obvious choice became Pakistan, which

being a bordering nation with Afghanistan and having relatively stable relations with the US ,would be rather accommading, but would

insist on certain damning concessions. The US government through the CIA would allocate large sums of money to the Afghan fighters

and the Saudi Arabians would match the US contributions dollar for dollar,but the Pakistani intelligence organization the ISI would be in

control of distributing the funds more or less as it chose and thus creating quite a conundrum. While the afghan warriors were battling

the soviet invaders the pakistani where off on an agenda of their own , basically to create militant groups that would help them to gain control

of the disputed Kashmir area bordering India. The soviet afghan war lasted roughly ten years , cost billions of dollars, destroyed the afghan

infrastructure and basically left the country politically divided with more bullets than beans. Three political tribes were all vying to gain

control of the country , Hekmatyar, Massoud and Najibullah. Hekmatyar was the Pakistani favorite, Najibullah was the soviet puppet and

Massoud was sporadically supplied and supported by the CIA. During the tumultuous 1980´s the Iraqi government with US backing commenced

hostilities against Iran. The US was angry at the Iranians for ousting the CIA backed puppet regime of the Shah, which was an immense

benefit for big business especially oil and weapons but also hegemony in the oil rich region. Where war exists terrible things occur and

the Iraq Iran war was no exception. On july 3rd 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger aircraft, killing all 290 civilians

aboard

Report this

By dihey, February 11, 2009 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

Most Presidents after FDR have wanted to “win a war” (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2) so what else is new? We have had a super-abundance of war-presidents in our history. Why would Obama be an exception? He desperately wants to look “macho” by waging war on the “Indians overseas” that threaten to kill “American settlers” here at home. And why is he so hung up on Osama bin Laden? Is ObL his version of Bush’s “mushroom cloud”? Mr. Obama is swiftly becoming dangerously ridiculous.
Mr. Obama has signaled many years ago in his interviews with the Chicago Tribune that he is an imperialist. He intends to do what imperialists do best, namely wage wars which is why he kept war czar Gates in his cabinet. If you believe that Gates was kept on for “continuity” please see your shrink.
We have become a nation of “czars and wars”. That is very expensive as it turns out.
If you think that President Bush 2 bloated the appropriations for defense wait till Mr. Obama submits his budget. Defense will be a huge item which is why he wants tons of social goodies in his current “stimulus package” so that he does not have to ask for them at budget time.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, February 11, 2009 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

Afghanistan has Always been the Trap waiting to be spung. But who set it is up to debate. AQ or CheneyCorp. these Two long time Allies have been working to destroy the US for Decades.
Bin Laden was one of those ‘Afghani Freedom Fighters’ the Reagan admin had propped up and groups like McCains sent aid & comfort. Helped Build a hellova Resume for Binny in the process. Lest we forget most of the 9/11 Attackers were Saudi’s native sons. SA is the heart, soul and breeding groud for Terrorsim. Afghanistan is merely the College Campus. and what does DICK’s old Co Halliburton thrive on- foreign oil from the Saudi region. And what does Halliburtons spawn KBR thrive on WAR.
Afghanistan was always the ‘foot in the door’ to Iraq and Irans Oil fields. Apparently Saddam was no longer playing ball with his ‘King makers’- who had supplied him with weapons like Anthrax during the ‘80’s. Was he about to Sing a Song about ChenyCorp- was the noose intentionally mis tied to send a message to any others who stepped out of line?
What Afghanistan also accomplishes is creating such a cluster, Superpowers are brought to their economic knees (USSR). Obivously this was not working fast enough so a Jinga piece had to be removed from the financial sector. Who suddenly made a ‘Run’ at Lemann Brothers, withdrawling Tillions and causing this domino effect. Had they tried earlier at Beare Sterns and failed to get the effect they had hoped in March ‘08? so they went for the next Big One? WHO pulled the Ace out of this House of Cards. We know it was not Freddie & Fannie as Repugs like to claim- they were merely the Skin leison caused by this systemic infection of over leveraging.The housing only Exposed an already Fatal illness.
Cheney has been trying to bring down this country for decades. Once he got in as VP (puppet master) he kicked off his reign of Terror with a Bang and ended it with US whimpering. The Saudi’s must be soo proud of their native son and their adoptive son.

Report this

By Bubba, February 11, 2009 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

Afghanistan, “where empires go to die.”

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook