7 New Messages
Digest #4445
Messages
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:15 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.panarmen
PanArmenian.
July 28, 2012
Islamic NATO as a new step towards Ottoman Empire revival
The new organization first targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover
Karine Ter-Sahakian
====
It should be noted that “Islamic NATO” first of all targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover. This “democracy” was quite apparent in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; tragically, Syria is following the same path.
“Islamic NATO” will definitely never lack funding: Saudi Arabia and Qatar will gladly undertake the financing of this formation, despite a certain theological discrepancy between Sunnis of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
====
Turkey is trying to become a more active player in the Near East, voicing ideas which then appear to be alarming, if not dangerous. The complete failure of its foreign policy pushes Ankara to seek new ways of implementing “neo-Ottomanism”. This, first of all, assumes the endorsement of a caliphate and restoration of the following title:
“Sultan (given name) Khan, Sovereign of the House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe, Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem”, et cetera, et cetera.
This was not just a detailed listing of the sultan's titles. A huge army that conquered vast territories in 400 years including Mecca and Medina, now under the rule of the Al Saudi dynasty, was of major importance for the Ottoman Empire. Establishment of a new caliphate needs an army as well - united Islamic forces, if possible.
Mustafa Kamalak, chairman of the Turkish Saadet (Felicity) Party voiced this idea in Morocco last week. Saadet is the hardline wing of the former Turkish Refah (Welfare) Party, the moderate Eurocentric wing of which is now Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Kamalak declared that “Islamic NATO” and Islamic peacekeeping forces need to be established urgently.
“Today’s events in Islamic countries again prove that the former Turkish PM Necmettin Erbakan was right in his urging the creation of Islamic peacekeeping forces. We heartily welcome the awakening in Islamic states and pray for their success. Still, the Western states are trying to benefit from it. We must first push forward unity and integrity, rather than our conflicts,” Kamalak noted.
Former prime minister of Turkey Necmettin Erbakan is known as the author of the “universal caliphate” concept. Ideologically, the caliphate is based on Islam, while its martial aspect relies on an independent military-political bloc. Erbakan named this bloc the “Islamic peacekeeping forces” and its supporters “Islamic NATO”. The North Atlantic Alliance is facing hard times now; meanwhile, Turkey is increasingly gaining weight, entitling it to come up with such statements. No doubt, Azerbaijan will be the first to join an Islamic NATO in case it does emerge. Baku will definitely attempt to thus settle its issues; otherwise, it will lose a second Karabakh war as well if it relies on its own resources.
It should be noted that “Islamic NATO” first of all targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover. This “democracy” was quite apparent in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; tragically, Syria is following the same path.
“Islamic NATO” will definitely never lack funding: Saudi Arabia and Qatar will gladly undertake the financing of this formation, despite a certain theological discrepancy between Sunnis of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
However, these obstacles can be overcome: monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia dominated by the Wahhabi branch of Islam, will hardly insist on the Sunnism they practice.
The new structure will also try to move away from the West and just ignore Iran. The West may also welcome the new bloc, hoping it will help settle the Syrian and Iranian issues. In a word, everybody will be happy.
Just one minor note: is the Arab world willing to see Turkey take the lead of their united forces? History hints the answer is negative. The thing is that the ideas Ankara is coming up with every now and then may once become a reality. So, one has to rely on Saudi Arabia and Qatar in this. Formal support to Erdogan with his sultanic aspirations is one thing, while tolerating, so to say, such a leader of the Islamic world is quite another.
Saudi Arabia’s kingdom rightfully believes this to be its prerogative and is not going to step down as yet. “As yet” being the key phrase here...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
PanArmenian.
July 28, 2012
Islamic NATO as a new step towards Ottoman Empire revival
The new organization first targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover
Karine Ter-Sahakian
====
It should be noted that “Islamic NATO” first of all targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover. This “democracy” was quite apparent in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; tragically, Syria is following the same path.
“Islamic NATO” will definitely never lack funding: Saudi Arabia and Qatar will gladly undertake the financing of this formation, despite a certain theological discrepancy between Sunnis of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
====
Turkey is trying to become a more active player in the Near East, voicing ideas which then appear to be alarming, if not dangerous. The complete failure of its foreign policy pushes Ankara to seek new ways of implementing “neo-Ottomanism”. This, first of all, assumes the endorsement of a caliphate and restoration of the following title:
“Sultan (given name) Khan, Sovereign of the House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe, Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem”, et cetera, et cetera.
This was not just a detailed listing of the sultan's titles. A huge army that conquered vast territories in 400 years including Mecca and Medina, now under the rule of the Al Saudi dynasty, was of major importance for the Ottoman Empire. Establishment of a new caliphate needs an army as well - united Islamic forces, if possible.
Mustafa Kamalak, chairman of the Turkish Saadet (Felicity) Party voiced this idea in Morocco last week. Saadet is the hardline wing of the former Turkish Refah (Welfare) Party, the moderate Eurocentric wing of which is now Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Kamalak declared that “Islamic NATO” and Islamic peacekeeping forces need to be established urgently.
“Today’s events in Islamic countries again prove that the former Turkish PM Necmettin Erbakan was right in his urging the creation of Islamic peacekeeping forces. We heartily welcome the awakening in Islamic states and pray for their success. Still, the Western states are trying to benefit from it. We must first push forward unity and integrity, rather than our conflicts,” Kamalak noted.
Former prime minister of Turkey Necmettin Erbakan is known as the author of the “universal caliphate” concept. Ideologically, the caliphate is based on Islam, while its martial aspect relies on an independent military-political bloc. Erbakan named this bloc the “Islamic peacekeeping forces” and its supporters “Islamic NATO”. The North Atlantic Alliance is facing hard times now; meanwhile, Turkey is increasingly gaining weight, entitling it to come up with such statements. No doubt, Azerbaijan will be the first to join an Islamic NATO in case it does emerge. Baku will definitely attempt to thus settle its issues; otherwise, it will lose a second Karabakh war as well if it relies on its own resources.
It should be noted that “Islamic NATO” first of all targets the Arab world, which Turkey is eager to attract under the “democracy protection” cover. This “democracy” was quite apparent in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; tragically, Syria is following the same path.
“Islamic NATO” will definitely never lack funding: Saudi Arabia and Qatar will gladly undertake the financing of this formation, despite a certain theological discrepancy between Sunnis of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
However, these obstacles can be overcome: monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia dominated by the Wahhabi branch of Islam, will hardly insist on the Sunnism they practice.
The new structure will also try to move away from the West and just ignore Iran. The West may also welcome the new bloc, hoping it will help settle the Syrian and Iranian issues. In a word, everybody will be happy.
Just one minor note: is the Arab world willing to see Turkey take the lead of their united forces? History hints the answer is negative. The thing is that the ideas Ankara is coming up with every now and then may once become a reality. So, one has to rely on Saudi Arabia and Qatar in this. Formal support to Erdogan with his sultanic aspirations is one thing, while tolerating, so to say, such a leader of the Islamic world is quite another.
Saudi Arabia’s kingdom rightfully believes this to be its prerogative and is not going to step down as yet. “As yet” being the key phrase here...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:15 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.rt.
Voice of Russia
July 28, 2012
US foreign policy adventurism approaching an all-time high
Christoph R. Hörstel
====
It seems as if the Kuwaiti “incubator plot” of the “Desert Storm” operation and the Serbian “concentration camps” cast their shadows any time the global community is involved in decision-making in US-claimed areas of interest.
[T]hose well-versed in the history of the thought and planning of US foreign policy know that Syria scenarios are more than 100 years old and include complete re-drawings of the regional political map.
What is badly needed is a “joint counter-vision” from those who do not intend to fall victim to this challenge without a struggle. Right now the first challenge is to unify the non-aligned movement to withstand all US/NATO/Arab efforts to win a majority in the UN assembly to back US-led aggression in the region.
Those who ponder projects like abandoning Syria may be reminded that Iran and Russia are under direct present threat, while US gunboat diplomacy also starts haunting China’s coastline.
====
Whenever the US warns there is an imminent danger of violence, even of a massacre or atrocities, it pays to take notice. Such predictions seem to have an almost uncanny knack of turning out to be accurate. So recent US “concerns” could mean bad news.
The world is just getting over the shock of accounts of massacres emerging from Syria, like the one in al-Houla at the end of May this year. The novelty of the outrage lies in the astonishing fact that from the mainstream conservative German daily FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) and Christian clergy, a shock wave went through major Western media. New grizzly details of the plot were uncovered, namely that known loyalist families, including dozens of women, children and the elderly, who denied support to the insurgents fell victim to the carnage.
According to intercepted rebel phone calls, massacres and other incidents are being perpetrated with the intention of later putting the blame on the government.
But what happened on Thursday seems to be yet another remarkable pointer as to how far the US is ready to go: "This is the concern, that we will see a massacre in Aleppo, and that's what the regime appears to be lining up for," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said – and the news spread quickly around the world. The announcement raises global fears as much as disgust, since several recent official international gatherings on the Syrian issue were preceded by mass killings on the ground, whether massacres or house-to-house fighting in major Syrian towns, with the brunt of the blame duly attributed to the Syrian government by the usual suspects in Western mainstream media in the usual media hype style. It seems as if the Kuwaiti “incubator plot” of the “Desert Storm” operation and the Serbian “concentration camps” cast their shadows any time the global community is involved in decision-making in US-claimed areas of interest.
Looking back at recent history, we may summarize thus: ever since Hillary Clinton’s like-minded predecessor, the gifted piano player Condoleezza Rice, threatened the whole Middle East with democracy in 2008, clearly defined strategic steps have been taken by the US to get the process going.
Rice received the most popular Egyptian bloggers, whose work helped facilitate the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring”, which in fact looks more like a blossom time for the CIA and other related US and aligned agencies. However, actions under cover look much more serious: a retired senior officer of the Egyptian army residing in Tunisia appears to have been functional in completing training for US-guided mercenaries and “Al-Qaeda” personnel since 2009. In the same year, the first advance parties of US agents arrived in Turkey to get acquainted with the area and its people. This information was obtained by Syrian officers from the not-so-small number of captured foreign fighters. Their various ID cards from Turkey, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan, among others, have been presented in many TV reports.
About the hundreds of armed but non-uniformed personnel crossing freely, uncounted and unchecked, into Syria across all borders in March 2011 the defected correspondents of Al-Jazeera – among others – have amply spoken out.
Since an operation of this size does not appear to be set up on an ad-hoc basis – nor could it be – it is no wonder that those well-versed in the history of the thought and planning of US foreign policy know that Syria scenarios are more than 100 years old and include complete re-drawings of the regional political map.
Against this background, recent US State Department utterings appear to be little other than a thinly veiled threat to the Syrian people, its rightful government and its international allies. The threat bears all the marks of complete bigotry, since many observers are aware that it is mostly US policy management that stages most of the killings in the region and beyond in the last 20-plus years, cooperation from all sorts of allies notwithstanding.
Starting from the Balkans in the late 90s, to the still shadowy 9/11 affair and pumped-up justifications for the 2003 war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the US record of staging media hypes looks impressive by now.
Those who wonder about the perfect integration of media, policies, secret services and the military may be advised to help themselves to a most interesting pamphlet on the Internet entitled “Joint Vision 2020”, which, in an update to “Joint Vision 2010”, incorporates asymmetrical warfare and extensive public relations scheming through the reliable media. The main line is that increasingly highly integrated machinery always works. “Peace” has stopped, the US Army fulfils its tasks all the time; war in all shapes and colors is permanent.
What is badly needed is a “joint counter-vision” from those who do not intend to fall victim to this challenge without a struggle. Right now the first challenge is to unify the non-aligned movement to withstand all US/NATO/Arab efforts to win a majority in the UN assembly to back US-led aggression in the region.
As this author has outlined, Syria needs to take successful action on five challenges: public relations in NATO countries; winning back a few members of the defected/disgruntle
This outline of Syrian government homework comes with a firm prediction – that failure to achieve two of the five will have dire consequences for the survival of the Assad regime.
The war in Syria will not be won militarily but in the civilian arena.
Military contributions can only buy time for implementation. Today’s threats by Syrian insurgents against the Russian naval base in Tartus are just a reminder how far the situation can deteriorate without a firm and sustainable strategy-based response.
UN UNSMIS commander General Robert Mood’s statement on the imminent fall of President Assad shows the way.
Those who ponder projects like abandoning Syria may be reminded that Iran and Russia are under direct present threat, while US gunboat diplomacy also starts haunting China’s coastline. Mid-term requirements are that the peacefully-minded global majority develops a coherent joint vision of how to counter the ever-growing challenge by a debt-driven hyper-power in decline.
“Crime doesn’t pay” is a central message to maintain state order. The same applies to our troubled blue planet, whether we fight for that or not at all. Troubles unfortunately do not tend to go away if they are ignored.
There are many more people in NATO countries hoping for a stabilizing response than may be assumed today.
Сhristoph R. Hörstel is managing director at Hörstel Networks, Government & Business Consulting. http://syria-
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
July 28, 2012
US foreign policy adventurism approaching an all-time high
Christoph R. Hörstel
====
It seems as if the Kuwaiti “incubator plot” of the “Desert Storm” operation and the Serbian “concentration camps” cast their shadows any time the global community is involved in decision-making in US-claimed areas of interest.
[T]hose well-versed in the history of the thought and planning of US foreign policy know that Syria scenarios are more than 100 years old and include complete re-drawings of the regional political map.
What is badly needed is a “joint counter-vision” from those who do not intend to fall victim to this challenge without a struggle. Right now the first challenge is to unify the non-aligned movement to withstand all US/NATO/Arab efforts to win a majority in the UN assembly to back US-led aggression in the region.
Those who ponder projects like abandoning Syria may be reminded that Iran and Russia are under direct present threat, while US gunboat diplomacy also starts haunting China’s coastline.
====
Whenever the US warns there is an imminent danger of violence, even of a massacre or atrocities, it pays to take notice. Such predictions seem to have an almost uncanny knack of turning out to be accurate. So recent US “concerns” could mean bad news.
The world is just getting over the shock of accounts of massacres emerging from Syria, like the one in al-Houla at the end of May this year. The novelty of the outrage lies in the astonishing fact that from the mainstream conservative German daily FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) and Christian clergy, a shock wave went through major Western media. New grizzly details of the plot were uncovered, namely that known loyalist families, including dozens of women, children and the elderly, who denied support to the insurgents fell victim to the carnage.
According to intercepted rebel phone calls, massacres and other incidents are being perpetrated with the intention of later putting the blame on the government.
But what happened on Thursday seems to be yet another remarkable pointer as to how far the US is ready to go: "This is the concern, that we will see a massacre in Aleppo, and that's what the regime appears to be lining up for," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said – and the news spread quickly around the world. The announcement raises global fears as much as disgust, since several recent official international gatherings on the Syrian issue were preceded by mass killings on the ground, whether massacres or house-to-house fighting in major Syrian towns, with the brunt of the blame duly attributed to the Syrian government by the usual suspects in Western mainstream media in the usual media hype style. It seems as if the Kuwaiti “incubator plot” of the “Desert Storm” operation and the Serbian “concentration camps” cast their shadows any time the global community is involved in decision-making in US-claimed areas of interest.
Looking back at recent history, we may summarize thus: ever since Hillary Clinton’s like-minded predecessor, the gifted piano player Condoleezza Rice, threatened the whole Middle East with democracy in 2008, clearly defined strategic steps have been taken by the US to get the process going.
Rice received the most popular Egyptian bloggers, whose work helped facilitate the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring”, which in fact looks more like a blossom time for the CIA and other related US and aligned agencies. However, actions under cover look much more serious: a retired senior officer of the Egyptian army residing in Tunisia appears to have been functional in completing training for US-guided mercenaries and “Al-Qaeda” personnel since 2009. In the same year, the first advance parties of US agents arrived in Turkey to get acquainted with the area and its people. This information was obtained by Syrian officers from the not-so-small number of captured foreign fighters. Their various ID cards from Turkey, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan, among others, have been presented in many TV reports.
About the hundreds of armed but non-uniformed personnel crossing freely, uncounted and unchecked, into Syria across all borders in March 2011 the defected correspondents of Al-Jazeera – among others – have amply spoken out.
Since an operation of this size does not appear to be set up on an ad-hoc basis – nor could it be – it is no wonder that those well-versed in the history of the thought and planning of US foreign policy know that Syria scenarios are more than 100 years old and include complete re-drawings of the regional political map.
Against this background, recent US State Department utterings appear to be little other than a thinly veiled threat to the Syrian people, its rightful government and its international allies. The threat bears all the marks of complete bigotry, since many observers are aware that it is mostly US policy management that stages most of the killings in the region and beyond in the last 20-plus years, cooperation from all sorts of allies notwithstanding.
Starting from the Balkans in the late 90s, to the still shadowy 9/11 affair and pumped-up justifications for the 2003 war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the US record of staging media hypes looks impressive by now.
Those who wonder about the perfect integration of media, policies, secret services and the military may be advised to help themselves to a most interesting pamphlet on the Internet entitled “Joint Vision 2020”, which, in an update to “Joint Vision 2010”, incorporates asymmetrical warfare and extensive public relations scheming through the reliable media. The main line is that increasingly highly integrated machinery always works. “Peace” has stopped, the US Army fulfils its tasks all the time; war in all shapes and colors is permanent.
What is badly needed is a “joint counter-vision” from those who do not intend to fall victim to this challenge without a struggle. Right now the first challenge is to unify the non-aligned movement to withstand all US/NATO/Arab efforts to win a majority in the UN assembly to back US-led aggression in the region.
As this author has outlined, Syria needs to take successful action on five challenges: public relations in NATO countries; winning back a few members of the defected/disgruntle
This outline of Syrian government homework comes with a firm prediction – that failure to achieve two of the five will have dire consequences for the survival of the Assad regime.
The war in Syria will not be won militarily but in the civilian arena.
Military contributions can only buy time for implementation. Today’s threats by Syrian insurgents against the Russian naval base in Tartus are just a reminder how far the situation can deteriorate without a firm and sustainable strategy-based response.
UN UNSMIS commander General Robert Mood’s statement on the imminent fall of President Assad shows the way.
Those who ponder projects like abandoning Syria may be reminded that Iran and Russia are under direct present threat, while US gunboat diplomacy also starts haunting China’s coastline. Mid-term requirements are that the peacefully-minded global majority develops a coherent joint vision of how to counter the ever-growing challenge by a debt-driven hyper-power in decline.
“Crime doesn’t pay” is a central message to maintain state order. The same applies to our troubled blue planet, whether we fight for that or not at all. Troubles unfortunately do not tend to go away if they are ignored.
There are many more people in NATO countries hoping for a stabilizing response than may be assumed today.
Сhristoph R. Hörstel is managing director at Hörstel Networks, Government & Business Consulting. http://syria-
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:15 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Nazar" muratoglunazar
NATO GENERAL IN ARMENIA
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.
Published: 14:38:46 - 27/07/2012
On July 25-27 Brigadier General Rob van der Meer, COMEDS (Committee
of the Chiefs of Military Medical Services in NATO) Chairman and
Surgeon General of the Netherlands Armed Forces was in Armenia.
On July 26, the Brigadier General met with the minister of defense of
Armenia Seyran Ohanyan. In the course of the meeting, a wide range
of issues relating to the exchange of experience, harmonization of
medical services approaches and work style to modern challenges
was discussed. The collocutors agreed the Armenian Armed Forces
military medical department and the military medical department of
the Armed Forces of Netherlands could launch effective cooperation,
joint military medical exercises and conferences.
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.
Published: 14:38:46 - 27/07/2012
On July 25-27 Brigadier General Rob van der Meer, COMEDS (Committee
of the Chiefs of Military Medical Services in NATO) Chairman and
Surgeon General of the Netherlands Armed Forces was in Armenia.
On July 26, the Brigadier General met with the minister of defense of
Armenia Seyran Ohanyan. In the course of the meeting, a wide range
of issues relating to the exchange of experience, harmonization of
medical services approaches and work style to modern challenges
was discussed. The collocutors agreed the Armenian Armed Forces
military medical department and the military medical department of
the Armed Forces of Netherlands could launch effective cooperation,
joint military medical exercises and conferences.
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:15 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Nazar" muratoglunazar
GETTING TO KNOW NATO
NATO HQ
http://www.nato.
July 27 2012
Three young people from Armenia, Russia and the United Kingdom were
among 20 competition winners to win a trip to NATO's Chicago Summit
in May. Upon returning home, they took time to reflect on their
experiences.
Called 'iReps' the winners, from as far and wide as Libya and
Indonesia, spent three days talking to NATO and national officials in
the margins of the Chicago Summit. They also debated the challenges
facing international peace and security with their peers.
"Having a chance to penetrate deeply into the NATO's goals and mission,
realising and analysing them, I found it surprising to change my
stereotypes about it," explains Emma Ohanyan from Armenia. "[NATO
moved] from an aggressive organization into one of the world's
principal contributors in peace and security," adds the 23 year-old who
works as a Russian-English translator at ARKA News Agency in Armenia.
More than 300 people accepted the challenge of the 'iReps' competition,
submitting a one minute video explaining what peace and security
means to them. The winners flew to Chicago to take part in the Young
Atlanticist Youth Summit which ran in parallel to the main Summit
meetings. They discussed the same Summit agenda themes of Afghanistan,
future capabilities and partnerships.
"NATO is no longer confronted by one clearly defined threat, such as
was evident during the Cold War," says 23-year old Thomas Durham, a
graduate student from Durham University in the United Kingdom. "There
are, in fact, a plethora of many diverse and multilateral threats -
which make the peace building process behind NATO more relevant than
ever," he explains.
Evolving views on NATO
Twenty-two year old Ekaterina Markova is a student at the Moscow
State Academy of Law. After reflecting on the debates and opinions
offered during the Summit weekend, she was surprised to learn about
the involvement of non-NATO members at the Summit and the Alliance
as a whole.
Reflecting on the global nature of today's security challenges,
Markova says it is increasingly important for countries to work
together to achieve success. "The invitation to other non-NATO members
to attend the Summit is a good decision for making concerted solutions,
which entertain the opinion of every member of our common community,"
she adds.
Discovering that NATO's fundamental decision making system was
consensus based was also new to some of the 'iReps', according
to Durham. "The idea of equality between all NATO members was
particularly revealing. [Meaning that] each member has the power
to veto any decision made by NATO... [where] a general consensus is
required for each policy decision to be ratified," Durham says.
Looking back
Along with students from the United States, the 'iReps' were joined
at the Youth Summit by several Afghan Fulbright Scholars. "They were
fascinating,
He feels the Scholars imparted a sense of "cautious optimism"
when discussing the challenges that lie ahead for the future of
Afghanistan. "[I learnt that] one should not always come from the
angle of being disappointed when dealing with Afghanistan - that in
fact, Afghanistan does have strong foundations.
Neither Markova nor Ohanyan could identify one element of the
experience as being better than the rest. "It was an exciting
opportunity for all of us to attend the press- conference of NATO
officials and heads of state and government, and be involved in the
process of discussion," says Markova.
Ohanyan adds that "meeting new friends from all over the world, having
the chance to hear their viewpoints on different issues as well as
hanging out in Chicago was just part of the fabulous experience."
The three iReps say they and their fellow winners came away from the
NATO Summit in Chicago with a better understanding about the inner
workings of NATO, as well as about their peers in other countries. "I
think, NATO is a very powerful organization that can defend not only
NATO member states, but also the whole world," says Markova. "That
is why NATO is important for peace and security."
NATO HQ
http://www.nato.
July 27 2012
Three young people from Armenia, Russia and the United Kingdom were
among 20 competition winners to win a trip to NATO's Chicago Summit
in May. Upon returning home, they took time to reflect on their
experiences.
Called 'iReps' the winners, from as far and wide as Libya and
Indonesia, spent three days talking to NATO and national officials in
the margins of the Chicago Summit. They also debated the challenges
facing international peace and security with their peers.
"Having a chance to penetrate deeply into the NATO's goals and mission,
realising and analysing them, I found it surprising to change my
stereotypes about it," explains Emma Ohanyan from Armenia. "[NATO
moved] from an aggressive organization into one of the world's
principal contributors in peace and security," adds the 23 year-old who
works as a Russian-English translator at ARKA News Agency in Armenia.
More than 300 people accepted the challenge of the 'iReps' competition,
submitting a one minute video explaining what peace and security
means to them. The winners flew to Chicago to take part in the Young
Atlanticist Youth Summit which ran in parallel to the main Summit
meetings. They discussed the same Summit agenda themes of Afghanistan,
future capabilities and partnerships.
"NATO is no longer confronted by one clearly defined threat, such as
was evident during the Cold War," says 23-year old Thomas Durham, a
graduate student from Durham University in the United Kingdom. "There
are, in fact, a plethora of many diverse and multilateral threats -
which make the peace building process behind NATO more relevant than
ever," he explains.
Evolving views on NATO
Twenty-two year old Ekaterina Markova is a student at the Moscow
State Academy of Law. After reflecting on the debates and opinions
offered during the Summit weekend, she was surprised to learn about
the involvement of non-NATO members at the Summit and the Alliance
as a whole.
Reflecting on the global nature of today's security challenges,
Markova says it is increasingly important for countries to work
together to achieve success. "The invitation to other non-NATO members
to attend the Summit is a good decision for making concerted solutions,
which entertain the opinion of every member of our common community,"
she adds.
Discovering that NATO's fundamental decision making system was
consensus based was also new to some of the 'iReps', according
to Durham. "The idea of equality between all NATO members was
particularly revealing. [Meaning that] each member has the power
to veto any decision made by NATO... [where] a general consensus is
required for each policy decision to be ratified," Durham says.
Looking back
Along with students from the United States, the 'iReps' were joined
at the Youth Summit by several Afghan Fulbright Scholars. "They were
fascinating,
He feels the Scholars imparted a sense of "cautious optimism"
when discussing the challenges that lie ahead for the future of
Afghanistan. "[I learnt that] one should not always come from the
angle of being disappointed when dealing with Afghanistan - that in
fact, Afghanistan does have strong foundations.
Neither Markova nor Ohanyan could identify one element of the
experience as being better than the rest. "It was an exciting
opportunity for all of us to attend the press- conference of NATO
officials and heads of state and government, and be involved in the
process of discussion," says Markova.
Ohanyan adds that "meeting new friends from all over the world, having
the chance to hear their viewpoints on different issues as well as
hanging out in Chicago was just part of the fabulous experience."
The three iReps say they and their fellow winners came away from the
NATO Summit in Chicago with a better understanding about the inner
workings of NATO, as well as about their peers in other countries. "I
think, NATO is a very powerful organization that can defend not only
NATO member states, but also the whole world," says Markova. "That
is why NATO is important for peace and security."
Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rickrozoff.
Stop NATO
July 28, 2012
U.S. Campaign Against Syria: Years In The Making
Rick Rozoff
Those occupying seats of power in Western capitals and their complicit film editors of politics and history in the mass corporate media, who decide when the narrative begins, how it proceeds and where it inevitably ends, have provided the world with a crude but consistent account of the current Syrian crisis. It is a sequel to, or better a remake of, last year's Libyan crusade, a six-month NATO bombing onslaught and naval blockade culminating in the gruesome slaying of the nation's head of state and the securing of Western control of the country and its resources.
The script reads as follows, with a signal absence of subplots, reversals, believable characterizations, political verisimilitude and the merest hint of complexity or subtlety:
Peaceful demonstrations by Syrian opposition forces last year met with a disproportionate and ruthless crackdown by government security and military personnel, who embarked on a gratuitous bloodbath against the Syrian population as whole. A scenario that might evoke, for the uninstructed observer, the situations in Bahrain and now Saudi Arabia, but which is to be applied exclusively to Syria for the moment...until it's revived for the next targeted government in the Middle East or elsewhere.
One of the myriad problems with that version of affairs is that U.S. and allied attempts to effect regime change in Damascus precede by several years what NATO powers portray as its opening scene.
From President Dwight D. Eisenhower dispatching the U.S. Sixth Fleet and 15,000 troops to Lebanon in 1958 to counteract Syrian influence in the nation to the 2004 move in the United Nations Security Council by the U.S. and its NATO allies to secure the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon, there is plentiful thematic material for what in contemporary cinema lingo would be deemed a prequel.
The campaign for overthrowing the Syrian government is part, is the current phase, of the relentless project to supplant ruling powers and substitute a new generation of political vassals and military clients in what Washington has alternatively referred to as the Greater, Broader and New Middle East - from Mauritania on the Atlantic Ocean to Kazakhstan on the Chinese and Russian borders.
Syria being only one of four Mediterranean Sea littoral and islands nations not a member of NATO and its Partnership for Peace and Mediterranean Dialogue programs - the others are, though for how long is not certain, Libya, Lebanon and Cyprus - its incorporation into the U.S.-led military bloc is a necessary Western objective. Libya is on its way to joining the Mediterranean Dialogue, Cyprus is being pressured to join the Partnership for Peace and Lebanon will follow Syria into the Mediterranean Dialogue if Western plans proceed as planned, thus completing the transformation of the Mediterranean into a private NATO preserve.
Russia will lose its only military facility outside former Soviet space and its only firm ally in the Arab world; Iran will lose its only governmental ally in the Arab World as well. Both will be driven out of the Mediterranean, which will be patrolled uncontested by the U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO's Operation Active Endeavor naval forces.
Almost eight years ago the U.S. and France, Syria's former colonial master, introduced a resolution in the United Nations Security Council which called on "all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon."
NATO allies Britain, Germany, Romania and Spain voted for what became Resolution 1559 in September 2004 and Russia, China and Algeria were among six Security Council members abstaining.
Five months later former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri was killed in a bomb attack against his motorcade in Beirut, which his supporters and the West attempted to blame on both Hezbollah and Syria and which resulted in the so-called Cedar Revolution which brought about the collapse of a pro-Syrian government.
By April 26 Syria had withdrawn all 14,000 troops it had stationed in Lebanon, ending a 29-year mission. Israeli troops remain in the Shebaa Farms area in Southern Lebanon and fifteen months after the last Syrian troops departed the nation Israel launched 34 days of air and artillery attacks and a ground invasion in Lebanon, as there were then no "remaining foreign forces" in the country.
A week and a half after the completion of the Syrian withdrawal then-President George W. Bush extended sanctions against Syria, claiming the nation of slightly over 20 million people continued to present a threat to American national security by allegedly "supporting terrorism" and "by continuing its invasion in Lebanon, and weapons of mass destruction and missile programs." Bush could not have been unaware of the fact that no Syrian forces remained in Lebanon as he issued his denunciation and barely veiled threat, all the more serious and urgent because of its mention of weapons of mass destruction, along with "supporting terrorism" the pretext employed to invade neighboring Iraq only two years before.
As an indication of what has since become a major U.S.-Russian conflict over the fate of Syria, later in the same month, May, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov met with Lebanon's prime minister, foreign minister and parliamentary speaker in Beirut and they collectively warned that exerting further pressure on Syria after it had withdrawn it troops from Lebanon would endanger security and stability in the region.
Later in the month Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a similar warning, recalling that "Significant progress has been made in implementing Resolution 1559, in particular the withdrawal of Syrian troops and security forces from Lebanon, the formation of a government there on the basis of a consensus, and organization of parliamentary elections on a date prescribed by the constitution.
In fact the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was heralded in Western circles at the time as the beginning of the end of the government of President Bashar Assad.
A May 1, 2005 article in the Financial Times disclosed American plans at the time, which have now reached full fruition. Reporting from Washington, Guy Dinmore wrote:
"The US will keep up pressure on Syria long after the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon, US officials say, outlining a policy that analysts believe is aimed at destabilising the regime led by President Bashar al-Assad."
The feature quoted former President George H.W. Bush administration official Flynt Leverett stating the new U.S. policy toward Syria was “basically regime change.”
Leverett, at the time an official at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, was paraphrased as adding "US officials were now inclined [to accept] that forcing Syria out of Lebanon would cause the regime to start to unravel" and that Washington could spare itself the expenditure of blood and treasure the Iraq model - attack, invasion and occupation - entailed, as it "believed regime change could be done 'on the cheap' through destabilisation.
During the summer of 2005 U.S. troops in Iraq engaged in several skirmishes with Syrian counterparts near the two countries' border, according to the New York Times resulting in the deaths of several Syrian soldiers.
As another portent of current developments, in June Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Washington to meet with President Bush in the White House, where the two heads of state emphasized the "important strategic relation" between their nations.
Among other commons concerns discussed - the counterinsurgency war against the Kurdistan Workers Party and Cyprus - Bush praised Erdogan for "strong support" of the Broader Middle East Initiative.
Already indicating Turkey's new intended role in the Arab world in general and in Syria in particular, Erdogan stated: "Syria is our neighbor and we have a 800 km border with them. We talked about how we will bring Syria to our own line of action. [The prime minister had recently completed visits to Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia.] They talked with our President about a troop withdrawal from Lebanon. They said, 'we will pull them out' and they did."
The month before, Bush had visited Georgia and his speech there contained words that were unfortunately ignored at the time and have been since, though their pertinence need hardly be stressed.
Referring to the U.S.-backed "Rose Revolution" of late 2003 and early 2004, the prototype for the so-called color revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and in Lebanon and in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (to be followed by the Twitter Revolution in Moldova in 2009 and attempts to replicate the model in Armenia, Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Venezuela), Bush ticked off and celebrated his geopolitical victories:
"Your courage is inspiring democratic reformers and sending a message that echoes across the world.
"Now, across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the Broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young people.
"In recent months, the world has marveled at the hopeful changes taking place from Baghdad to Beirut to Bishkek [the Kyrgyz capital]. But before there was a Purple Revolution in Iraq, or an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was the Rose Revolution in Georgia."
On November 11, 2005 President Assad delivered a speech at Damascus University in which he reflected on the retreat from Lebanon and what even then was the challenge his nation would face in the future.
His comments included these:
"A number of international circles, and their agents in our Arab establishment, have been trying to promote their destructive political schemes under exciting names which touch people’s feelings and emotions and have been targeting people’s minds and souls before targeting their countries and invading their cultural identity and national existence before invading their national borders."
"The danger lies in the fact that they target the intellectual, psychological and moral structure of Arabs, within the framework of a media, cultural and scientific war which targets our young generation in particular with the aim of separating them from their identity, heritage and history and making them lose confidence in themselves and their capabilities, and consequently pushing them to surrender to the illusion of certain defeat at the first attempt to confront and stand fast before outside pressure put on the whole region, and on Syria in particular."
Washington announced and Damascus understood years in advance what the intended endgame in Syria would be. The past sixteen months' unrest and violence in Syria is both partially the result of and the opportunity to complete the Broader Middle East strategy of the U.S. and NATO. And to escalate the most dangerous diplomatic and political, perhaps ultimately military, confrontation with Russia and China since the Cold War.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Stop NATO
July 28, 2012
U.S. Campaign Against Syria: Years In The Making
Rick Rozoff
Those occupying seats of power in Western capitals and their complicit film editors of politics and history in the mass corporate media, who decide when the narrative begins, how it proceeds and where it inevitably ends, have provided the world with a crude but consistent account of the current Syrian crisis. It is a sequel to, or better a remake of, last year's Libyan crusade, a six-month NATO bombing onslaught and naval blockade culminating in the gruesome slaying of the nation's head of state and the securing of Western control of the country and its resources.
The script reads as follows, with a signal absence of subplots, reversals, believable characterizations, political verisimilitude and the merest hint of complexity or subtlety:
Peaceful demonstrations by Syrian opposition forces last year met with a disproportionate and ruthless crackdown by government security and military personnel, who embarked on a gratuitous bloodbath against the Syrian population as whole. A scenario that might evoke, for the uninstructed observer, the situations in Bahrain and now Saudi Arabia, but which is to be applied exclusively to Syria for the moment...until it's revived for the next targeted government in the Middle East or elsewhere.
One of the myriad problems with that version of affairs is that U.S. and allied attempts to effect regime change in Damascus precede by several years what NATO powers portray as its opening scene.
From President Dwight D. Eisenhower dispatching the U.S. Sixth Fleet and 15,000 troops to Lebanon in 1958 to counteract Syrian influence in the nation to the 2004 move in the United Nations Security Council by the U.S. and its NATO allies to secure the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon, there is plentiful thematic material for what in contemporary cinema lingo would be deemed a prequel.
The campaign for overthrowing the Syrian government is part, is the current phase, of the relentless project to supplant ruling powers and substitute a new generation of political vassals and military clients in what Washington has alternatively referred to as the Greater, Broader and New Middle East - from Mauritania on the Atlantic Ocean to Kazakhstan on the Chinese and Russian borders.
Syria being only one of four Mediterranean Sea littoral and islands nations not a member of NATO and its Partnership for Peace and Mediterranean Dialogue programs - the others are, though for how long is not certain, Libya, Lebanon and Cyprus - its incorporation into the U.S.-led military bloc is a necessary Western objective. Libya is on its way to joining the Mediterranean Dialogue, Cyprus is being pressured to join the Partnership for Peace and Lebanon will follow Syria into the Mediterranean Dialogue if Western plans proceed as planned, thus completing the transformation of the Mediterranean into a private NATO preserve.
Russia will lose its only military facility outside former Soviet space and its only firm ally in the Arab world; Iran will lose its only governmental ally in the Arab World as well. Both will be driven out of the Mediterranean, which will be patrolled uncontested by the U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO's Operation Active Endeavor naval forces.
Almost eight years ago the U.S. and France, Syria's former colonial master, introduced a resolution in the United Nations Security Council which called on "all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon."
NATO allies Britain, Germany, Romania and Spain voted for what became Resolution 1559 in September 2004 and Russia, China and Algeria were among six Security Council members abstaining.
Five months later former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri was killed in a bomb attack against his motorcade in Beirut, which his supporters and the West attempted to blame on both Hezbollah and Syria and which resulted in the so-called Cedar Revolution which brought about the collapse of a pro-Syrian government.
By April 26 Syria had withdrawn all 14,000 troops it had stationed in Lebanon, ending a 29-year mission. Israeli troops remain in the Shebaa Farms area in Southern Lebanon and fifteen months after the last Syrian troops departed the nation Israel launched 34 days of air and artillery attacks and a ground invasion in Lebanon, as there were then no "remaining foreign forces" in the country.
A week and a half after the completion of the Syrian withdrawal then-President George W. Bush extended sanctions against Syria, claiming the nation of slightly over 20 million people continued to present a threat to American national security by allegedly "supporting terrorism" and "by continuing its invasion in Lebanon, and weapons of mass destruction and missile programs." Bush could not have been unaware of the fact that no Syrian forces remained in Lebanon as he issued his denunciation and barely veiled threat, all the more serious and urgent because of its mention of weapons of mass destruction, along with "supporting terrorism" the pretext employed to invade neighboring Iraq only two years before.
As an indication of what has since become a major U.S.-Russian conflict over the fate of Syria, later in the same month, May, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov met with Lebanon's prime minister, foreign minister and parliamentary speaker in Beirut and they collectively warned that exerting further pressure on Syria after it had withdrawn it troops from Lebanon would endanger security and stability in the region.
Later in the month Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a similar warning, recalling that "Significant progress has been made in implementing Resolution 1559, in particular the withdrawal of Syrian troops and security forces from Lebanon, the formation of a government there on the basis of a consensus, and organization of parliamentary elections on a date prescribed by the constitution.
In fact the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was heralded in Western circles at the time as the beginning of the end of the government of President Bashar Assad.
A May 1, 2005 article in the Financial Times disclosed American plans at the time, which have now reached full fruition. Reporting from Washington, Guy Dinmore wrote:
"The US will keep up pressure on Syria long after the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon, US officials say, outlining a policy that analysts believe is aimed at destabilising the regime led by President Bashar al-Assad."
The feature quoted former President George H.W. Bush administration official Flynt Leverett stating the new U.S. policy toward Syria was “basically regime change.”
Leverett, at the time an official at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, was paraphrased as adding "US officials were now inclined [to accept] that forcing Syria out of Lebanon would cause the regime to start to unravel" and that Washington could spare itself the expenditure of blood and treasure the Iraq model - attack, invasion and occupation - entailed, as it "believed regime change could be done 'on the cheap' through destabilisation.
During the summer of 2005 U.S. troops in Iraq engaged in several skirmishes with Syrian counterparts near the two countries' border, according to the New York Times resulting in the deaths of several Syrian soldiers.
As another portent of current developments, in June Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Washington to meet with President Bush in the White House, where the two heads of state emphasized the "important strategic relation" between their nations.
Among other commons concerns discussed - the counterinsurgency war against the Kurdistan Workers Party and Cyprus - Bush praised Erdogan for "strong support" of the Broader Middle East Initiative.
Already indicating Turkey's new intended role in the Arab world in general and in Syria in particular, Erdogan stated: "Syria is our neighbor and we have a 800 km border with them. We talked about how we will bring Syria to our own line of action. [The prime minister had recently completed visits to Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia.] They talked with our President about a troop withdrawal from Lebanon. They said, 'we will pull them out' and they did."
The month before, Bush had visited Georgia and his speech there contained words that were unfortunately ignored at the time and have been since, though their pertinence need hardly be stressed.
Referring to the U.S.-backed "Rose Revolution" of late 2003 and early 2004, the prototype for the so-called color revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and in Lebanon and in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (to be followed by the Twitter Revolution in Moldova in 2009 and attempts to replicate the model in Armenia, Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Venezuela), Bush ticked off and celebrated his geopolitical victories:
"Your courage is inspiring democratic reformers and sending a message that echoes across the world.
"Now, across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the Broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young people.
"In recent months, the world has marveled at the hopeful changes taking place from Baghdad to Beirut to Bishkek [the Kyrgyz capital]. But before there was a Purple Revolution in Iraq, or an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was the Rose Revolution in Georgia."
On November 11, 2005 President Assad delivered a speech at Damascus University in which he reflected on the retreat from Lebanon and what even then was the challenge his nation would face in the future.
His comments included these:
"A number of international circles, and their agents in our Arab establishment, have been trying to promote their destructive political schemes under exciting names which touch people’s feelings and emotions and have been targeting people’s minds and souls before targeting their countries and invading their cultural identity and national existence before invading their national borders."
"The danger lies in the fact that they target the intellectual, psychological and moral structure of Arabs, within the framework of a media, cultural and scientific war which targets our young generation in particular with the aim of separating them from their identity, heritage and history and making them lose confidence in themselves and their capabilities, and consequently pushing them to surrender to the illusion of certain defeat at the first attempt to confront and stand fast before outside pressure put on the whole region, and on Syria in particular."
Washington announced and Damascus understood years in advance what the intended endgame in Syria would be. The past sixteen months' unrest and violence in Syria is both partially the result of and the opportunity to complete the Broader Middle East strategy of the U.S. and NATO. And to escalate the most dangerous diplomatic and political, perhaps ultimately military, confrontation with Russia and China since the Cold War.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:46 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thefront
Frontier Post
July 28, 2012
American and NATO misadventures
Abid Mustafa
After having fought for more than a decade in Afghanistan, America has yet to show any considerable gains for its brutal occupation. Nonetheless, there are some diehard American strategists who beg to differ, and argue that America has achieved its primary objective, which was to establish a few military bases in Afghanistan to counter Russia, China and the future Caliphate state for eventual supremacy over Eurasia.
But, even this lofty ideal when measured against the reality on the ground appears too remote to be categorized as a worthy accomplishment. On the contrary, the rampant instability in Afghanistan not only puts into jeopardy the viability of such strategic objectives, but more importantly raises questions about how long can America afford to stay stuck in the Afghan quagmire and continue to report failure after failure.
Clues about this very prospect were provided at the NATO summit convened in Chicago back in May 2012. Speaking about America's ubiquitous nemesis the Taliban, Obama candidly admitted that they were a hardened opponent and whatever gains NATO had made could easily be undone.
He said, "The Taliban is still a robust enemy, and the gains are still fragile. But think about it. We've been there now 10 years. Ten years in a country that's very different, that's a strain, not only on our folks but also on that country, which at a point is going to be very sensitive about its own sovereignty.
Just how much time does the world's lone superpower need with all of its sophisticated weaponry to defeat a ragtag army of no more than 25,000 or so? Did America not assemble under its supervision 400,000 soldiers - not to mentions the tens of thousands of private contractors - on both side of the Afghan-Pakistan border? After several years of warfare, America is still unable to crush their avowed adversary. Outgunned and outmanned Taliban are definitely proving to be more than a 'robust enemy'.
Equally unfathomable is that it has taken several years for the US to accept the fact that NATO is not only fighting the Taliban but also the Afghan people. The reference to "be[ing] very sensitive about its own sovereignty" is an admission by President Obama that NATO faces a popular resistance which cuts right across ethnic fault lines and trumps traditional tribal loyalties.
Another fiasco of America's Afghan war is its exorbitant cost, which has placed a huge toll on the defense budget and this has been further exacerbated by the economic crisis of 2008. America has spent circa $550 billion on the Afghan war since 2001.
Other NATO member states like Britain have spent in the region of $20 billion. Yet despite squandering billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, NATO has very little to show. Karzai's government is corrupt to the core and hated by ordinary Afghans.
Karzai's writ does not extend beyond parts of Kabul, and if it does exist elsewhere, it is totally reliant on foreign forces. According to some estimates Taliban controls around 80% of Afghanistan. This probably explains why it is so difficult for NATO to hold on to territorial gains. All attempts to coopt the Taliban into a political solution have likewise failed.
The Financial Times summed up the West's sorry state: "Five years ago the Americans were refusing to speak to the Taliban. Now the Taliban are refusing to speak to the Americans. That is a measure of how the balance of power has shifted in Afghanistan. The western intervention there has failed."
Added to this is the human toll on NATO forces, which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. So it came as no surprise to find that the joint communique issued at the end of the Chicago summit expressed the collective desire of all the NATO countries to draw the curtain on their Afghan misadventure. The statement read: "After 10 years of war and with the global economy reeling, the nations of the West no longer want to pay, either in treasure or in lives, the costs of their efforts in a place that for centuries has resisted foreign attempts to tame it".
Whilst 2014 (a date revised several times) is the final withdrawal date for most NATO countries, America and her opportunist partner Britain both steeped in arrogance have still not learnt their lesson and plan to stay beyond this date.
No doubt they will do their utmost to delay the inevitable collapse of Karzai's government and try and save face with their domestic audience.
Concluding, the writing is on the wall; America and NATO are heading for a catastrophic defeat and no matter how hard they try to dress up their failings, their only success will be to unite and embolden Afghans along with their brethren across the border in Pakistan to claim the scalp of Pax-Americana and deal a devastating blow to NATO's first ever mission in Eurasia.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Frontier Post
July 28, 2012
American and NATO misadventures
Abid Mustafa
After having fought for more than a decade in Afghanistan, America has yet to show any considerable gains for its brutal occupation. Nonetheless, there are some diehard American strategists who beg to differ, and argue that America has achieved its primary objective, which was to establish a few military bases in Afghanistan to counter Russia, China and the future Caliphate state for eventual supremacy over Eurasia.
But, even this lofty ideal when measured against the reality on the ground appears too remote to be categorized as a worthy accomplishment. On the contrary, the rampant instability in Afghanistan not only puts into jeopardy the viability of such strategic objectives, but more importantly raises questions about how long can America afford to stay stuck in the Afghan quagmire and continue to report failure after failure.
Clues about this very prospect were provided at the NATO summit convened in Chicago back in May 2012. Speaking about America's ubiquitous nemesis the Taliban, Obama candidly admitted that they were a hardened opponent and whatever gains NATO had made could easily be undone.
He said, "The Taliban is still a robust enemy, and the gains are still fragile. But think about it. We've been there now 10 years. Ten years in a country that's very different, that's a strain, not only on our folks but also on that country, which at a point is going to be very sensitive about its own sovereignty.
Just how much time does the world's lone superpower need with all of its sophisticated weaponry to defeat a ragtag army of no more than 25,000 or so? Did America not assemble under its supervision 400,000 soldiers - not to mentions the tens of thousands of private contractors - on both side of the Afghan-Pakistan border? After several years of warfare, America is still unable to crush their avowed adversary. Outgunned and outmanned Taliban are definitely proving to be more than a 'robust enemy'.
Equally unfathomable is that it has taken several years for the US to accept the fact that NATO is not only fighting the Taliban but also the Afghan people. The reference to "be[ing] very sensitive about its own sovereignty" is an admission by President Obama that NATO faces a popular resistance which cuts right across ethnic fault lines and trumps traditional tribal loyalties.
Another fiasco of America's Afghan war is its exorbitant cost, which has placed a huge toll on the defense budget and this has been further exacerbated by the economic crisis of 2008. America has spent circa $550 billion on the Afghan war since 2001.
Other NATO member states like Britain have spent in the region of $20 billion. Yet despite squandering billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, NATO has very little to show. Karzai's government is corrupt to the core and hated by ordinary Afghans.
Karzai's writ does not extend beyond parts of Kabul, and if it does exist elsewhere, it is totally reliant on foreign forces. According to some estimates Taliban controls around 80% of Afghanistan. This probably explains why it is so difficult for NATO to hold on to territorial gains. All attempts to coopt the Taliban into a political solution have likewise failed.
The Financial Times summed up the West's sorry state: "Five years ago the Americans were refusing to speak to the Taliban. Now the Taliban are refusing to speak to the Americans. That is a measure of how the balance of power has shifted in Afghanistan. The western intervention there has failed."
Added to this is the human toll on NATO forces, which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. So it came as no surprise to find that the joint communique issued at the end of the Chicago summit expressed the collective desire of all the NATO countries to draw the curtain on their Afghan misadventure. The statement read: "After 10 years of war and with the global economy reeling, the nations of the West no longer want to pay, either in treasure or in lives, the costs of their efforts in a place that for centuries has resisted foreign attempts to tame it".
Whilst 2014 (a date revised several times) is the final withdrawal date for most NATO countries, America and her opportunist partner Britain both steeped in arrogance have still not learnt their lesson and plan to stay beyond this date.
No doubt they will do their utmost to delay the inevitable collapse of Karzai's government and try and save face with their domestic audience.
Concluding, the writing is on the wall; America and NATO are heading for a catastrophic defeat and no matter how hard they try to dress up their failings, their only success will be to unite and embolden Afghans along with their brethren across the border in Pakistan to claim the scalp of Pax-Americana and deal a devastating blow to NATO's first ever mission in Eurasia.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.pajhwok.
Pajhwok Afghan News
July 28, 2012
2 foreign soldiers killed in insurgent attack
KABUL: Two International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldiers were killed in an insurgent attack in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, the alliance said.
The servicemembers’ deaths were announced in a brief statement from the NATO-led force that neither gave the victims’ nationalities nor the exact location of the attack.
Mostly US troops are fighting against the Taliban insurgents in the east.
The latest fatalities bring the number of ISAF soldiers killed in Afghanistan so far this month to at least 42.
Pajhwok Afghan News
July 28, 2012
2 foreign soldiers killed in insurgent attack
KABUL: Two International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldiers were killed in an insurgent attack in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, the alliance said.
The servicemembers’ deaths were announced in a brief statement from the NATO-led force that neither gave the victims’ nationalities nor the exact location of the attack.
Mostly US troops are fighting against the Taliban insurgents in the east.
The latest fatalities bring the number of ISAF soldiers killed in Afghanistan so far this month to at least 42.
