7 New Messages
Digest #4461
Messages
Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:46 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.flonnet.
Frontline
August 11-24
Terror as weapon
John Cherian
====
The terror groups operating in the country have been lavishly funded and trained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also by Turkey and the U.S., two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking after the rebels had briefly seized two border crossings and massacred the soldiers manning the posts, said that cooperation with the armed rebels should increase. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al Assadi told the media that the Turkey-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) “executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers” after they briefly overran a border post at Abu Kamal, in eastern Syria, close to Iraq, in the third week of July.
The Iraqi government has obviously drawn a parallel with what is happening across its borders to the recent terror attacks in Iraq. Many of the Iraqi “jehadis” have transformed themselves into Syrian freedom fighters.
====
July became one of the bloodiest months for Syria as the foreign-backed armed groups made a concerted attempt to further destabilise the government led by Bashar al Assad. The terror attack on July 18, which claimed the lives of Defence Minister Dawoud Rahja and three senior officials (Assef Shawkat, deputy head of the Syrian Army and brother-in-law of Bashar al Assad; Hassan Turkmani, Chief of Crisis Operations; and Hisham Bakhtiar, head of Intelligence) who were in the forefront of the security drive to clear the armed groups from their strongholds, was indeed a serious blow to the government. The fact that the bombing occurred in the National Security Building where meetings are often chaired by the President himself is a serious cause for alarm as it could not have happened without the help of hostile foreign powers.
The Turkish newspaper Habberturk reported that Israeli Intelligence played an important role in the attack. It quoted an unidentified former American intelligence analyst as saying that the “entire attack smelled of Mossad”. Israeli President Shimon Peres has publicly stated that he wants the Syrian government to collapse. If a pro-Western government is installed in Damascus, then Israel can turn its full attention to Hizbollah, and the United States can focus on regime change in Iran.
The Syrian government said that foreign powers were behind the attack and named “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel” as the countries responsible for the act of terror. A Reuters report in the last week of July said that a secret base located in Adana province near Turkey’s border with Syria was the “nerve centre” from where operations to topple the government in Damascus were being launched. The U.S’ military base of Incirlik is also based in Adana.
The leaders of the countries ranged against Syria virtually applauded the terror attack. The U.S. State Department spokesman, while saying that Washington was against further bloodshed in Syria, “noted” that those killed and injured “were key architects of the Assad regime’s assault on the Syrian people”. A palpable regret could be noticed in the statements issued by some governments that the primary target of the bombing – the President – was not among the casualties. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the American reaction to the Damascus blasts “as a direct endorsement of terrorism”. He said that the position Washington had adopted was “a sinister one”.
The terror groups operating in the country have been lavishly funded and trained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also by Turkey and the U.S., two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking after the rebels had briefly seized two border crossings and massacred the soldiers manning the posts, said that cooperation with the armed rebels should increase. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al Assadi told the media that the Turkey-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) “executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers” after they briefly overran a border post at Abu Kamal, in eastern Syria, close to Iraq, in the third week of July.
According to reports, most FSA commanders are Iraqi Sunnis. A series of terror attacks had taken place in the Shia-dominated areas in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities in July. It is not surprising that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Malki has refused to endorse the Arab League’s call to Bashar al Assad to step down. The Iraqi government has obviously drawn a parallel with what is happening across its borders to the recent terror attacks in Iraq. Many of the Iraqi “jehadis” have transformed themselves into Syrian freedom fighters.
It is estimated that more than a hundred armed groups are operating in the urban areas of the country. The U.S. media have finally acknowledged that Al Qaeda and Salafist fighters who infiltrated from the neighbouring countries were responsible for the spectacular suicide bombings and sectarian attacks. Randa Kassis, one of the leading figures of the FSA, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that “the Islamist groups, which are superbly financed and equipped by the Gulf states, are ruthlessly seizing decision-making power for themselves”. Muslim clerics in many Arab countries are urging young people to turn Syria into another Afghanistan. German intelligence has estimated that around 90 per cent of the armed insurgents owe their allegiance to Al Qaeda. A recent Time magazine report said that Al Qaeda flags dominate in rural areas currently occupied by the armed groups.
U.N. CHARTER
Immediately after the Damascus terror attack, Washington and its allies started piling pressure on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to invoke Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, which allows the use of outside military force against Syria. It was the third time in nine months that the U.S. and its allies tried to force a resolution on Syria. Russia and China once again vetoed the resolution. South Africa (a member of BRICS, an association of the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Pakistan chose to abstain. But India, which currently occupies a seat in the UNSC, once again voted with the West. Russia and China have remained steadfast on the side of the beleaguered Syrian government even as traditional friends such as India have virtually deserted it in its time of need.
South Africa, in fact, criticised the one-sided nature of the draft resolution. India, which had chosen to abstain on the crucial resolution which led to outside military intervention in Libya last year, changed its stance in the case of Syria. New Delhi has been consistently siding with the West and the Sunni Arab monarchies on issues ranging from Libya to Iran. The BRICS countries are supposed to present a united front on crucial foreign policy issues. The final declaration issued at the 2012 BRICS summit held in New Delhi in March, stressed the need for cohesiveness while voting on important political issues in international forums.
Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the U.N., accused the Western members of the U.N. of attempting “to fan the flames of confrontation in the Security Council”. He said that the draft resolution on Syria, which was put to vote, was “biased”, adding that “the threat of sanctions was exclusively aimed at the government of Syria, and does not reflect the reality of the country today. It is especially ambiguous in the light of what happened with the grave terrorist attack that took place in Damascus.”
The Russian Foreign Minister said in Moscow that the position of the West in practical terms meant that they “are going to support such acts of terrorism until the UNSC acts on their demands”. He emphasised that the West was not interested in solving the crisis in Syria, which had been dragging on for more than a year, in a collective manner. The resolution presented in the UNSC made no mention of the terror groups inside Syria being backed by outside forces. Nor was there any suggestion from the West and its allies about stopping support for the armed militants fighting the Syrian government.
The rebels in Syria know fully well that without outside intervention they will never be able to defeat the Syrian Army. The Security Council had invoked Chapter Seven against Libya last year, following which the West immediately started a bombing campaign and openly trained and armed the anti-government militias there. The result was more bloodshed and carnage. The goal of regime change was achieved, but instability in the region only increased, with civil war engulfing neighbouring Mali and militant groups, armed with weapons looted from Libya, creating havoc even in countries such as Nigeria. Libya itself is in danger of being balkanised, with the eastern part threatening to secede.
Washington was also not keen to extend the terms of the Kofi Annan-led Peace Mission to Syria. China, along with India, wanted to give the mission another 45 days. A compromise was finally reached on July 20, extending the mission by another 30 days with the possibility of a further extension provided there was a cessation of the use of heavy weapons. The tactics of the armed groups is to occupy sections of cities and towns, leaving the government with little option but to drive them away using heavy artillery at times. This happened in Damascus in late July. When the rebels were driven out of Damascus, they opened up another front in a section of Aleppo, the largest city in the country. Washington, which anyway was never too enamoured of the Annan plan, wants to give it a formal burial after the latest extension.
The Barack Obama administration knows fully well that the rebels it is arming and financing will keep on fighting and the Syrian state will respond to preserve law and order. The pliant media under its control will pin all the atrocities happening in the country on the government or groups supporting it. The veteran German war correspondent Jurgen Totenhofer, writing in the widely circulated newspaper Bild, accused the rebels of “deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government”. He described this “massacre marketing strategy” as being “among the most disgusting things I have ever experienced in an armed conflict”.
The Syrian government seems determined to ride out the maelstrom currently buffeting it. Besides diplomatic support from Russia and China, Syria is also assured of military backing from traditional allies such as Iran. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem was in Teheran on an unscheduled visit at the end of July. He said in Teheran that the bulk of the anti-government fighters were now staging a last-ditch fight in Aleppo. “They will definitely be defeated,” he told a joint press conference along with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi. Muallem said that his country “is a target of a global plot whose agents are in this region”. Salehi warned about the adverse consequences for the entire region if the Bashar al Assad government was ousted by force. He said that the consequences “would engulf the region and eventually the entire world”.
Iran’s Vice-President in charge of international affairs, Ali Saeedlou, told a visiting Syrian delegation in the last week of July that his country was ready to share its “experience and capabilities with the brother nation of Syria”. In the same week, General Massoud Jazayeri said that Syria had friends in the region who were ready to “strike out”. He was probably referring to the Hizbollah in Lebanon. The Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in an important speech delivered in the third week of July to commemorate the 2006 war against an Israeli invasion force in Lebanon, said that “Syria is a genuine problem for the U.S. and Israel” because it is “a linking bridge between Iran and the resistance and, in better words, the principal supporter of the resistance at a special military level”.
He went on to say that it was Syria’s help that proved crucial in its victory against the Israeli forces. He said that Syria gave most of the arms and missiles to the resistance forces during the 33-day war in 2006. Nasrallah blamed the West for sponsoring terrorist activities in Syria and blocking a national dialogue. He said the main reason why the U.S. was trying to destabilise Syria was the country’s support for the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance against Israel, “the gendarme of the region”. Almost on cue, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.S. media that his government was ready to take military action against Syria to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands “of Hizbollah and other terror groups”. U.S. and Israeli officials are now citing the pretext of “chemical weapons” to intervene militarily in Syria. The U.S. had used the non-existent threat of weapons of mass destruction as a ruse to invade
Iraq in 2003.
============
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@
============
Frontline
August 11-24
Terror as weapon
John Cherian
====
The terror groups operating in the country have been lavishly funded and trained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also by Turkey and the U.S., two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking after the rebels had briefly seized two border crossings and massacred the soldiers manning the posts, said that cooperation with the armed rebels should increase. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al Assadi told the media that the Turkey-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) “executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers” after they briefly overran a border post at Abu Kamal, in eastern Syria, close to Iraq, in the third week of July.
The Iraqi government has obviously drawn a parallel with what is happening across its borders to the recent terror attacks in Iraq. Many of the Iraqi “jehadis” have transformed themselves into Syrian freedom fighters.
====
July became one of the bloodiest months for Syria as the foreign-backed armed groups made a concerted attempt to further destabilise the government led by Bashar al Assad. The terror attack on July 18, which claimed the lives of Defence Minister Dawoud Rahja and three senior officials (Assef Shawkat, deputy head of the Syrian Army and brother-in-law of Bashar al Assad; Hassan Turkmani, Chief of Crisis Operations; and Hisham Bakhtiar, head of Intelligence) who were in the forefront of the security drive to clear the armed groups from their strongholds, was indeed a serious blow to the government. The fact that the bombing occurred in the National Security Building where meetings are often chaired by the President himself is a serious cause for alarm as it could not have happened without the help of hostile foreign powers.
The Turkish newspaper Habberturk reported that Israeli Intelligence played an important role in the attack. It quoted an unidentified former American intelligence analyst as saying that the “entire attack smelled of Mossad”. Israeli President Shimon Peres has publicly stated that he wants the Syrian government to collapse. If a pro-Western government is installed in Damascus, then Israel can turn its full attention to Hizbollah, and the United States can focus on regime change in Iran.
The Syrian government said that foreign powers were behind the attack and named “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel” as the countries responsible for the act of terror. A Reuters report in the last week of July said that a secret base located in Adana province near Turkey’s border with Syria was the “nerve centre” from where operations to topple the government in Damascus were being launched. The U.S’ military base of Incirlik is also based in Adana.
The leaders of the countries ranged against Syria virtually applauded the terror attack. The U.S. State Department spokesman, while saying that Washington was against further bloodshed in Syria, “noted” that those killed and injured “were key architects of the Assad regime’s assault on the Syrian people”. A palpable regret could be noticed in the statements issued by some governments that the primary target of the bombing – the President – was not among the casualties. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the American reaction to the Damascus blasts “as a direct endorsement of terrorism”. He said that the position Washington had adopted was “a sinister one”.
The terror groups operating in the country have been lavishly funded and trained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also by Turkey and the U.S., two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking after the rebels had briefly seized two border crossings and massacred the soldiers manning the posts, said that cooperation with the armed rebels should increase. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al Assadi told the media that the Turkey-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) “executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers” after they briefly overran a border post at Abu Kamal, in eastern Syria, close to Iraq, in the third week of July.
According to reports, most FSA commanders are Iraqi Sunnis. A series of terror attacks had taken place in the Shia-dominated areas in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities in July. It is not surprising that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Malki has refused to endorse the Arab League’s call to Bashar al Assad to step down. The Iraqi government has obviously drawn a parallel with what is happening across its borders to the recent terror attacks in Iraq. Many of the Iraqi “jehadis” have transformed themselves into Syrian freedom fighters.
It is estimated that more than a hundred armed groups are operating in the urban areas of the country. The U.S. media have finally acknowledged that Al Qaeda and Salafist fighters who infiltrated from the neighbouring countries were responsible for the spectacular suicide bombings and sectarian attacks. Randa Kassis, one of the leading figures of the FSA, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that “the Islamist groups, which are superbly financed and equipped by the Gulf states, are ruthlessly seizing decision-making power for themselves”. Muslim clerics in many Arab countries are urging young people to turn Syria into another Afghanistan. German intelligence has estimated that around 90 per cent of the armed insurgents owe their allegiance to Al Qaeda. A recent Time magazine report said that Al Qaeda flags dominate in rural areas currently occupied by the armed groups.
U.N. CHARTER
Immediately after the Damascus terror attack, Washington and its allies started piling pressure on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to invoke Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, which allows the use of outside military force against Syria. It was the third time in nine months that the U.S. and its allies tried to force a resolution on Syria. Russia and China once again vetoed the resolution. South Africa (a member of BRICS, an association of the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Pakistan chose to abstain. But India, which currently occupies a seat in the UNSC, once again voted with the West. Russia and China have remained steadfast on the side of the beleaguered Syrian government even as traditional friends such as India have virtually deserted it in its time of need.
South Africa, in fact, criticised the one-sided nature of the draft resolution. India, which had chosen to abstain on the crucial resolution which led to outside military intervention in Libya last year, changed its stance in the case of Syria. New Delhi has been consistently siding with the West and the Sunni Arab monarchies on issues ranging from Libya to Iran. The BRICS countries are supposed to present a united front on crucial foreign policy issues. The final declaration issued at the 2012 BRICS summit held in New Delhi in March, stressed the need for cohesiveness while voting on important political issues in international forums.
Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the U.N., accused the Western members of the U.N. of attempting “to fan the flames of confrontation in the Security Council”. He said that the draft resolution on Syria, which was put to vote, was “biased”, adding that “the threat of sanctions was exclusively aimed at the government of Syria, and does not reflect the reality of the country today. It is especially ambiguous in the light of what happened with the grave terrorist attack that took place in Damascus.”
The Russian Foreign Minister said in Moscow that the position of the West in practical terms meant that they “are going to support such acts of terrorism until the UNSC acts on their demands”. He emphasised that the West was not interested in solving the crisis in Syria, which had been dragging on for more than a year, in a collective manner. The resolution presented in the UNSC made no mention of the terror groups inside Syria being backed by outside forces. Nor was there any suggestion from the West and its allies about stopping support for the armed militants fighting the Syrian government.
The rebels in Syria know fully well that without outside intervention they will never be able to defeat the Syrian Army. The Security Council had invoked Chapter Seven against Libya last year, following which the West immediately started a bombing campaign and openly trained and armed the anti-government militias there. The result was more bloodshed and carnage. The goal of regime change was achieved, but instability in the region only increased, with civil war engulfing neighbouring Mali and militant groups, armed with weapons looted from Libya, creating havoc even in countries such as Nigeria. Libya itself is in danger of being balkanised, with the eastern part threatening to secede.
Washington was also not keen to extend the terms of the Kofi Annan-led Peace Mission to Syria. China, along with India, wanted to give the mission another 45 days. A compromise was finally reached on July 20, extending the mission by another 30 days with the possibility of a further extension provided there was a cessation of the use of heavy weapons. The tactics of the armed groups is to occupy sections of cities and towns, leaving the government with little option but to drive them away using heavy artillery at times. This happened in Damascus in late July. When the rebels were driven out of Damascus, they opened up another front in a section of Aleppo, the largest city in the country. Washington, which anyway was never too enamoured of the Annan plan, wants to give it a formal burial after the latest extension.
The Barack Obama administration knows fully well that the rebels it is arming and financing will keep on fighting and the Syrian state will respond to preserve law and order. The pliant media under its control will pin all the atrocities happening in the country on the government or groups supporting it. The veteran German war correspondent Jurgen Totenhofer, writing in the widely circulated newspaper Bild, accused the rebels of “deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government”. He described this “massacre marketing strategy” as being “among the most disgusting things I have ever experienced in an armed conflict”.
The Syrian government seems determined to ride out the maelstrom currently buffeting it. Besides diplomatic support from Russia and China, Syria is also assured of military backing from traditional allies such as Iran. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem was in Teheran on an unscheduled visit at the end of July. He said in Teheran that the bulk of the anti-government fighters were now staging a last-ditch fight in Aleppo. “They will definitely be defeated,” he told a joint press conference along with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi. Muallem said that his country “is a target of a global plot whose agents are in this region”. Salehi warned about the adverse consequences for the entire region if the Bashar al Assad government was ousted by force. He said that the consequences “would engulf the region and eventually the entire world”.
Iran’s Vice-President in charge of international affairs, Ali Saeedlou, told a visiting Syrian delegation in the last week of July that his country was ready to share its “experience and capabilities with the brother nation of Syria”. In the same week, General Massoud Jazayeri said that Syria had friends in the region who were ready to “strike out”. He was probably referring to the Hizbollah in Lebanon. The Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in an important speech delivered in the third week of July to commemorate the 2006 war against an Israeli invasion force in Lebanon, said that “Syria is a genuine problem for the U.S. and Israel” because it is “a linking bridge between Iran and the resistance and, in better words, the principal supporter of the resistance at a special military level”.
He went on to say that it was Syria’s help that proved crucial in its victory against the Israeli forces. He said that Syria gave most of the arms and missiles to the resistance forces during the 33-day war in 2006. Nasrallah blamed the West for sponsoring terrorist activities in Syria and blocking a national dialogue. He said the main reason why the U.S. was trying to destabilise Syria was the country’s support for the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance against Israel, “the gendarme of the region”. Almost on cue, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.S. media that his government was ready to take military action against Syria to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands “of Hizbollah and other terror groups”. U.S. and Israeli officials are now citing the pretext of “chemical weapons” to intervene militarily in Syria. The U.S. had used the non-existent threat of weapons of mass destruction as a ruse to invade
Iraq in 2003.
============
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@
============
Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:46 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 13, 2012
37 NATO soldiers killed in insider attacks in Afghanistan this year
KABUL: Thirty-seven soldiers with the NATO-led coalition have been killed in so-called green-on-blue attacks since the beginning of this year across the post-Taliban Afghanistan, a coalition spokesman said Monday.
"So when we talk about insider raids some call green-on-blue incidents we talk about 27 incidents so far in this year and we had 37 people killed in those incidents," a spokesman with the coalition or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Brigadier General Gunter Katz told reporters in a regular press briefing here.
...
In the latest so-called green-on-blue attacks, a total of six NATO-led ISAF soldiers lost their lives in a single day Friday in the country's southern province of Helmand.
The Taliban insurgents, who have been waging more than a decade-long insurgency and launched a spring offensive from May 3 this year to target security forces, have regularly claimed responsibility for the insider attacks or green-on-blue offensives.
...
Meantime, in a similar incident, two members of Afghan National Police (ANP) shot dead seven colleagues in Dilaram district of southwestern Nimroz province on Saturday.
============
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@
============
Xinhua News Agency
August 13, 2012
37 NATO soldiers killed in insider attacks in Afghanistan this year
KABUL: Thirty-seven soldiers with the NATO-led coalition have been killed in so-called green-on-blue attacks since the beginning of this year across the post-Taliban Afghanistan, a coalition spokesman said Monday.
"So when we talk about insider raids some call green-on-blue incidents we talk about 27 incidents so far in this year and we had 37 people killed in those incidents," a spokesman with the coalition or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Brigadier General Gunter Katz told reporters in a regular press briefing here.
...
In the latest so-called green-on-blue attacks, a total of six NATO-led ISAF soldiers lost their lives in a single day Friday in the country's southern province of Helmand.
The Taliban insurgents, who have been waging more than a decade-long insurgency and launched a spring offensive from May 3 this year to target security forces, have regularly claimed responsibility for the insider attacks or green-on-blue offensives.
...
Meantime, in a similar incident, two members of Afghan National Police (ANP) shot dead seven colleagues in Dilaram district of southwestern Nimroz province on Saturday.
============
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@
============
Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:53 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 13, 2012
A deadly weekend in Afghanistan – latest, but hardly last
Boris Volkhonsky
====
The past weekend's picture and the hunt Afghan police officers have opened on US soldiers might seem grim enough. But how much more is in store; the US strategists should have thought before plunging into the Afghan adventure almost 11 years ago.
====
As reported by The Washington Post, on Friday night, an Afghan police officer opened fire on US marines at a military base in the Garmsir district of the Southern Helmand province. Three marines were killed on the spot in a location where no single bullet had been fired for several months.
The previous night, three other marines were killed – also by a man clad in an Afghan police uniform, also in Helmand province. The two incidents constituted what is called the 25th and the 26th “green-on-blue attacks”.
Attacks by Afghans on US and other NATO troops are obviously intensifying, while the announced deadline of the coalition troop withdrawal nears. Also frequently comes news of Afghan police and army officers deserting and joining the Taliban. All this produces an atmosphere of uncertainty and disarray with no one being able to give a positive answer to the question of what will happen when (or, rather, if) the Western troops leave the country.
One does not have to be a prophet to say that while the number of foreign troops will gradually diminish, the impudence of their foes will grow proportionally. Therefore, last weekend, although witnessing one of the deadliest recent attacks it will hardly be the final one in a chain of similar incidents. The sad thing about it is the impossibility of withdrawing all troops in one instant, therefore no one can say at the moment how many more young Americans and other Westerners will have to pay with their lives for consecutive US presidents' ambitions.
The uncertainty is obviously felt at the highest levels of the Afghan establishment too. While for President Hamid Karzai the only secure way out of the situation is fleeing the country while foreign troops are there, not all in the highest echelons of power will be able to do the same. And this creates a situation where high-ranking officials have already started a scramble for appearing most dovish and loyal to future rulers.
On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the chief of Afghanistan’s anti-graft commission has called for the country’s finance minister to step aside while he is being investigated in connection with corruption allegations. He is one of the four ministers (the others being the ministers of Defense, Interior and Mining) who have been under considerable pressure to resign. And it is hardly coincidental that all four are looked upon as among the closest US allies.
Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak has already resigned, while the resignation of the three others seems all but set. And this raises the prospect that the West’s already tenuous relationship with the Afghan government could become even less stable.
Accusations of corruption are nothing new in today's Afghanistan, which according to Transparency International is second (from the bottom of the list) only to Somalia. But the fact that the tool is being used by other cabinet members (quite unlikely to be much cleaner in this respect) shows that the Afghan establishment is bracing for a change of power and the advent of new rulers.
This becomes even more obvious after, as reported by the Associated Press, Afghan government representatives met with top-ranking Taliban member Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in his prison cell in Pakistan. Mullah Baradar was captured in Pakistan in 2010, and many observers rank him as high as No 2 (inferior only to Mullah Omar) and an acting leader of the movement as of 2009.
No particular details of the talks between the Afghan government officials and Mullah Baradar have been reported but, taken together, all this produces a clear picture. The nation is fed up with the ten-plus-year presence of foreign occupation forces, and almost every faction of the society is ready to embrace the force that once ruled the country – however strict and cruel that rule might be.
The past weekend's picture and the hunt Afghan police officers have opened on US soldiers might seem grim enough. But how much more is in store; the US strategists should have thought before plunging into the Afghan adventure almost 11 years ago.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
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
August 13, 2012
A deadly weekend in Afghanistan – latest, but hardly last
Boris Volkhonsky
====
The past weekend's picture and the hunt Afghan police officers have opened on US soldiers might seem grim enough. But how much more is in store; the US strategists should have thought before plunging into the Afghan adventure almost 11 years ago.
====
As reported by The Washington Post, on Friday night, an Afghan police officer opened fire on US marines at a military base in the Garmsir district of the Southern Helmand province. Three marines were killed on the spot in a location where no single bullet had been fired for several months.
The previous night, three other marines were killed – also by a man clad in an Afghan police uniform, also in Helmand province. The two incidents constituted what is called the 25th and the 26th “green-on-blue attacks”.
Attacks by Afghans on US and other NATO troops are obviously intensifying, while the announced deadline of the coalition troop withdrawal nears. Also frequently comes news of Afghan police and army officers deserting and joining the Taliban. All this produces an atmosphere of uncertainty and disarray with no one being able to give a positive answer to the question of what will happen when (or, rather, if) the Western troops leave the country.
One does not have to be a prophet to say that while the number of foreign troops will gradually diminish, the impudence of their foes will grow proportionally. Therefore, last weekend, although witnessing one of the deadliest recent attacks it will hardly be the final one in a chain of similar incidents. The sad thing about it is the impossibility of withdrawing all troops in one instant, therefore no one can say at the moment how many more young Americans and other Westerners will have to pay with their lives for consecutive US presidents' ambitions.
The uncertainty is obviously felt at the highest levels of the Afghan establishment too. While for President Hamid Karzai the only secure way out of the situation is fleeing the country while foreign troops are there, not all in the highest echelons of power will be able to do the same. And this creates a situation where high-ranking officials have already started a scramble for appearing most dovish and loyal to future rulers.
On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the chief of Afghanistan’s anti-graft commission has called for the country’s finance minister to step aside while he is being investigated in connection with corruption allegations. He is one of the four ministers (the others being the ministers of Defense, Interior and Mining) who have been under considerable pressure to resign. And it is hardly coincidental that all four are looked upon as among the closest US allies.
Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak has already resigned, while the resignation of the three others seems all but set. And this raises the prospect that the West’s already tenuous relationship with the Afghan government could become even less stable.
Accusations of corruption are nothing new in today's Afghanistan, which according to Transparency International is second (from the bottom of the list) only to Somalia. But the fact that the tool is being used by other cabinet members (quite unlikely to be much cleaner in this respect) shows that the Afghan establishment is bracing for a change of power and the advent of new rulers.
This becomes even more obvious after, as reported by the Associated Press, Afghan government representatives met with top-ranking Taliban member Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in his prison cell in Pakistan. Mullah Baradar was captured in Pakistan in 2010, and many observers rank him as high as No 2 (inferior only to Mullah Omar) and an acting leader of the movement as of 2009.
No particular details of the talks between the Afghan government officials and Mullah Baradar have been reported but, taken together, all this produces a clear picture. The nation is fed up with the ten-plus-year presence of foreign occupation forces, and almost every faction of the society is ready to embrace the force that once ruled the country – however strict and cruel that rule might be.
The past weekend's picture and the hunt Afghan police officers have opened on US soldiers might seem grim enough. But how much more is in store; the US strategists should have thought before plunging into the Afghan adventure almost 11 years ago.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
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@
============
Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:03 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.rt.
RT
August 14, 2012
US military plan against China outlined in think tank report
====
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
====
As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.
The paper, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.
The report was written by the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. CSIS is a non-government body, but its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department.
The assessment provides extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command.
The report was released on June 27, but only gained media coverage after its main authors – David Berteau and Michael Green – testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.
The report says the “geostrategic uncertainty the United States and its allies and partners face in the Asia Pacific region is how China’s growing power and influence will impact order and stability in the years ahead.”
The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are strategically located in the Western Pacific. It also supports the stationing of combat ships in Singapore, which will be capable of intelligence gathering, special operations, and landing troops with armored vehicles.
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
But it doesn’t stop there. Recommendations to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power go on and on.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The report also suggests permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam as well as boosting both manned and unmanned surveillance in the region.
Moreover, it promotes boosting US army ground presence, including stationing 2,500 more marines in Australia.
The recommendations coincide with the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot.” It’s a plan to boost US military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific Region, and to back almost all of China’s rivals whilst doing so.
And the government has most certainly accomplished its goal. Just last week, the Pentagon announced it would conduct surveillance drone missiles over a Pacific island chain which have become a point of tension between China and Japan – who the US has deep military ties to.
Washington has also been a firm supporter of the Philippines during its ongoing dispute with China in the South China Sea since April, when a standoff began over ownership of the Scarborough Reef.
Since the disagreement kicked off, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the region. The move angered Beijing, which claims the presence of US naval ships hinders vital shipping lanes which China relies on for energy and raw materials.
If America makes the report’s suggestions a reality, the decision could have far-reaching implications for Washington’s allies, making them vulnerable to attacks in the future.
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.
============
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@
============
RT
August 14, 2012
US military plan against China outlined in think tank report
====
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
====
As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.
The paper, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.
The report was written by the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. CSIS is a non-government body, but its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department.
The assessment provides extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command.
The report was released on June 27, but only gained media coverage after its main authors – David Berteau and Michael Green – testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.
The report says the “geostrategic uncertainty the United States and its allies and partners face in the Asia Pacific region is how China’s growing power and influence will impact order and stability in the years ahead.”
The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are strategically located in the Western Pacific. It also supports the stationing of combat ships in Singapore, which will be capable of intelligence gathering, special operations, and landing troops with armored vehicles.
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
But it doesn’t stop there. Recommendations to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power go on and on.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The report also suggests permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam as well as boosting both manned and unmanned surveillance in the region.
Moreover, it promotes boosting US army ground presence, including stationing 2,500 more marines in Australia.
The recommendations coincide with the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot.” It’s a plan to boost US military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific Region, and to back almost all of China’s rivals whilst doing so.
And the government has most certainly accomplished its goal. Just last week, the Pentagon announced it would conduct surveillance drone missiles over a Pacific island chain which have become a point of tension between China and Japan – who the US has deep military ties to.
Washington has also been a firm supporter of the Philippines during its ongoing dispute with China in the South China Sea since April, when a standoff began over ownership of the Scarborough Reef.
Since the disagreement kicked off, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the region. The move angered Beijing, which claims the presence of US naval ships hinders vital shipping lanes which China relies on for energy and raw materials.
If America makes the report’s suggestions a reality, the decision could have far-reaching implications for Washington’s allies, making them vulnerable to attacks in the future.
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.
============
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@
============
Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://kucinich.
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
August 13, 2012
Kucinich Legislation Reins in NATO, Reclaims Constitutional War Powers of Congress
Washington: Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is today urging Members of Congress to support legislation, H.R. 6290 [1], to prevent future presidents from using the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war.
“NATO has become a sock puppet to conduct military operations abroad absent congressional authorization, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This practice undermines our Constitution and global security as it allows the president to perpetrate violence without congressional oversight. Congress must fight to regain its basic constitutional right to declare war,” said Kucinich.
H.R. 6290 would prohibit the deployment of a unit or individual of the U.S. Armed Forces or an element of the intelligence community in support of a NATO mission absent prior statutory authorization for such deployment from Congress, as enshrined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be reined it. Its actions have moved beyond taking measures in defense of countries to offensive military operations that have threatened to destabilize Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and other regions around the world. Congress must act to ensure that NATO doesn’t further erode the authority of the United States Congress to determine when and where the use of military force, or when and where the United States military or intelligence services are utilized,” said Kucinich.
1)
http://thomas.
============
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@
============
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
August 13, 2012
Kucinich Legislation Reins in NATO, Reclaims Constitutional War Powers of Congress
Washington: Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is today urging Members of Congress to support legislation, H.R. 6290 [1], to prevent future presidents from using the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war.
“NATO has become a sock puppet to conduct military operations abroad absent congressional authorization, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This practice undermines our Constitution and global security as it allows the president to perpetrate violence without congressional oversight. Congress must fight to regain its basic constitutional right to declare war,” said Kucinich.
H.R. 6290 would prohibit the deployment of a unit or individual of the U.S. Armed Forces or an element of the intelligence community in support of a NATO mission absent prior statutory authorization for such deployment from Congress, as enshrined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be reined it. Its actions have moved beyond taking measures in defense of countries to offensive military operations that have threatened to destabilize Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and other regions around the world. Congress must act to ensure that NATO doesn’t further erode the authority of the United States Congress to determine when and where the use of military force, or when and where the United States military or intelligence services are utilized,” said Kucinich.
1)
http://thomas.
============
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@
============
Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:31 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.scotsman
The Scotsman
August 14, 2012
Scottish independence: Nationalists’ CND group prepares to do battle over party’s Nato U-turn
By Andrew Whitaker
THE SNP leadership is under growing pressure to abandon plans to drop the party’s long-standing opposition to Nato membership.
SNP CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) has said it will devote its entire conference to plan how to oppose an attempt by SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson to change policy to a pro-Nato stance.
The group, which has about 1,000 members, had planned to use the conference on 25 August to discuss general issues surrounding nuclear weapons and defence policy.
However, amid widespread opposition to the proposed shift, the group has now billed the event on its website as a conference for SNP members to plan how they can “retain the current SNP anti-Nato policy” in a clear sign of the growing unrest within the party.
The move comes after seven other SNP MSPs and a dozen groups within the party lodged a formal bid to oppose the policy reversal, a shift backed by First Minister Alex Salmond. SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn has lodged a formal amendment to vote down a resolution to the conference from Mr Robertson, which states that an independent Scotland would “maintain Nato membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons”.
============
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@
============
The Scotsman
August 14, 2012
Scottish independence: Nationalists’ CND group prepares to do battle over party’s Nato U-turn
By Andrew Whitaker
THE SNP leadership is under growing pressure to abandon plans to drop the party’s long-standing opposition to Nato membership.
SNP CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) has said it will devote its entire conference to plan how to oppose an attempt by SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson to change policy to a pro-Nato stance.
The group, which has about 1,000 members, had planned to use the conference on 25 August to discuss general issues surrounding nuclear weapons and defence policy.
However, amid widespread opposition to the proposed shift, the group has now billed the event on its website as a conference for SNP members to plan how they can “retain the current SNP anti-Nato policy” in a clear sign of the growing unrest within the party.
The move comes after seven other SNP MSPs and a dozen groups within the party lodged a formal bid to oppose the policy reversal, a shift backed by First Minister Alex Salmond. SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn has lodged a formal amendment to vote down a resolution to the conference from Mr Robertson, which states that an independent Scotland would “maintain Nato membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons”.
============
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@
============
Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.dailyrec
Daily Record
August 14, 2012
Anti-nuclear weapons protesters to stage demonstration at SNP headquarters
====
Today is the 67th anniversary of the US nuclear strike on the Japanese city of Nagasaki which killed about 70,000 people.
A Trident Ploughshares spokeswoman suggested that if the SNP kept Scotland in Nato they would be accepting that other members of alliance are ready to use nuclear weapons "to commit mass murder on your behalf".
"The amendment suggests that there should be a referendum on that position and the the SNP's position in that referendum should be that we maintain our opposition to Nato as it is a nuclear first-strike force."
====
Protesters are set to stage a demonstration outside SNP headquarters today over the party leadership's proposal to ditch their opposition to Nato.
Trident Ploughshares said the planned U-turn, which would see an independent Scotland remain within the nuclear-armed military alliance, is incompatible with the party's anti-nuclear stance.
SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson will ask delegates at the party conference in October to back the new pro-Nato stance with the support of First Minister Alex Salmond.
They face opposition from a group led by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn, who has tabled an amendment urging the conference to maintain the policy "that Scotland should not remain a member of Nato" as it "continues to be a nuclear weapons-based alliance".
Trident Ploughshares fears the proposed u-turn signals "a slowly buckling resolve to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons", which will keep them on the Clyde for decades more.
Today is the 67th anniversary of the US nuclear strike on the Japanese city of Nagasaki which killed about 70,000 people.
A Trident Ploughshares spokeswoman suggested that if the SNP kept Scotland in Nato they would be accepting that other members of alliance are ready to use nuclear weapons "to commit mass murder on your behalf".
The deadline for amendments to Mr Robertson's pro-Nato resolution is tomorrow.
Mr Hepburn said: "I can confirm that I have submitted an amendment with a number of colleagues and organisations within the party, and I look forward to the SNP standing orders and agenda committee considering that amendment.
"Once it is on the final agenda, I look forward to the debate at the conference."
An SNP spokesman said if the amendment is accepted it will be published on the conference agenda around September 14.
SNP MSP John Finnie confirmed that he will be supporting Mr Hepburn's amendment.
He said: "The reality of the situation is that, as with the EU (European Union), the day after independence Scotland will remain a member of Nato.
"The amendment suggests that there should be a referendum on that position and the the SNP's position in that referendum should be that we maintain our opposition to Nato as it is a nuclear first-strike force."
SNP MSPs Sandra White, Marco Biagi, Dave Thompson, Jean Urquhart and Gordon MacDonald are also understood to be backing the amendment.
An SNP spokesman said: "The SNP has a cast-iron commitment to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons.
"Given the continued presence of Trident nuclear weapons in Scotland - against the wishes of her Parliament and people - independence is the only constitutional option which makes this possible.
"SNP members have the democratic opportunity to make their views on Nato membership clear at the annual conference in October, where we expect to have an excellent debate on defence policy, including reaffirming the party's strong anti-nuclear stance."
Daily Record
August 14, 2012
Anti-nuclear weapons protesters to stage demonstration at SNP headquarters
====
Today is the 67th anniversary of the US nuclear strike on the Japanese city of Nagasaki which killed about 70,000 people.
A Trident Ploughshares spokeswoman suggested that if the SNP kept Scotland in Nato they would be accepting that other members of alliance are ready to use nuclear weapons "to commit mass murder on your behalf".
"The amendment suggests that there should be a referendum on that position and the the SNP's position in that referendum should be that we maintain our opposition to Nato as it is a nuclear first-strike force."
====
Protesters are set to stage a demonstration outside SNP headquarters today over the party leadership's proposal to ditch their opposition to Nato.
Trident Ploughshares said the planned U-turn, which would see an independent Scotland remain within the nuclear-armed military alliance, is incompatible with the party's anti-nuclear stance.
SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson will ask delegates at the party conference in October to back the new pro-Nato stance with the support of First Minister Alex Salmond.
They face opposition from a group led by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn, who has tabled an amendment urging the conference to maintain the policy "that Scotland should not remain a member of Nato" as it "continues to be a nuclear weapons-based alliance".
Trident Ploughshares fears the proposed u-turn signals "a slowly buckling resolve to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons", which will keep them on the Clyde for decades more.
Today is the 67th anniversary of the US nuclear strike on the Japanese city of Nagasaki which killed about 70,000 people.
A Trident Ploughshares spokeswoman suggested that if the SNP kept Scotland in Nato they would be accepting that other members of alliance are ready to use nuclear weapons "to commit mass murder on your behalf".
The deadline for amendments to Mr Robertson's pro-Nato resolution is tomorrow.
Mr Hepburn said: "I can confirm that I have submitted an amendment with a number of colleagues and organisations within the party, and I look forward to the SNP standing orders and agenda committee considering that amendment.
"Once it is on the final agenda, I look forward to the debate at the conference."
An SNP spokesman said if the amendment is accepted it will be published on the conference agenda around September 14.
SNP MSP John Finnie confirmed that he will be supporting Mr Hepburn's amendment.
He said: "The reality of the situation is that, as with the EU (European Union), the day after independence Scotland will remain a member of Nato.
"The amendment suggests that there should be a referendum on that position and the the SNP's position in that referendum should be that we maintain our opposition to Nato as it is a nuclear first-strike force."
SNP MSPs Sandra White, Marco Biagi, Dave Thompson, Jean Urquhart and Gordon MacDonald are also understood to be backing the amendment.
An SNP spokesman said: "The SNP has a cast-iron commitment to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons.
"Given the continued presence of Trident nuclear weapons in Scotland - against the wishes of her Parliament and people - independence is the only constitutional option which makes this possible.
"SNP members have the democratic opportunity to make their views on Nato membership clear at the annual conference in October, where we expect to have an excellent debate on defence policy, including reaffirming the party's strong anti-nuclear stance."
