10 New Messages
Digest #4494
Messages
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://cominf.
Republic News Agency
September 18, 2012
Georgia is preparing seriously for a war - President of South Ossetia
Today in Tskhinval the president of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, has declared at a meeting with the co-chairs of the Geneva discussions that the Georgian side is conducting intensive preparations for a war around the perimeter of the border with South Ossetia.
"We have reliable information about the current intentions of Georgia. In particular, in the area adjacent to the territory of Leningor, the Georgian Ministry of Defense is building fortifications. In all the border villages are Georgia has constructed warehouses for the storage of small arms," said the president.
According to him, all these actions lead to the conclusion that they are directed against the people of South Ossetia, which two days later will mark the 22nd anniversary of the formation of the Republic.
"For all these years we have been expressing the principles of entrenchment of our statehood and good relations with other countries. We have always been following peace. War will never lead to anything good; there are victims on both sides. And we have to protect our people," emphasized the president.
He has underscored that today is not the time for "saber-rattling"
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
September 18, 2012
‘Georgia gearing up for new war’ - S. Ossetia leader
The president of South Ossetia has told international intermediaries that the activity near his country’s border suggests that Georgia is readying for a new war.
Leonid Tibilov told the representatives of the European Union, OSCE and United Nations that South Ossetian intelligence possessed serious information that the Georgian side was building fortifications and creating ammunition dumps in the villages near the border between the two countries. He added that such events invoked thoughts that Georgia plans a military action against the people of South Ossetia.
Tibilov told the foreign diplomats that his country will remain in a position of peaceful coexistence with other nations and the responsibility for all provocations and threats must be put on the current leadership of Georgia.
The intermediaries’ visit to the South Ossetian capital Tskhinval was held ahead of the so-called Geneva International Discussion on the Georgian Crisis – the multinational forum tasked with the aim of improving security and the humanitarian conditions in the region.
In August this year, Russian Foreign Ministry officials said that Georgian authorities were still considering using force against South Ossetia and Abkhazia – two breakaway states that were officially recognized independent by Russia and several other states after South Ossetia in 2008 repelled, with Russian help, Georgian aggression that sought to reclaim the republic as its territory. Russian diplomats pointed out that official Tbilisi was inflating fears about the threat from Russia ahead of October’s parliamentary vote.
Russia sees South Ossetia as its principal ally in the region and renders significant help to the republic. This year Moscow allocated 9 billion rubles (US$298.8 million) for the restoration of South Ossetia, and another 8.5 billion rubles ($282.2 million) will be provided to the republic by 2013.
============
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@
============
Republic News Agency
September 18, 2012
Georgia is preparing seriously for a war - President of South Ossetia
Today in Tskhinval the president of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, has declared at a meeting with the co-chairs of the Geneva discussions that the Georgian side is conducting intensive preparations for a war around the perimeter of the border with South Ossetia.
"We have reliable information about the current intentions of Georgia. In particular, in the area adjacent to the territory of Leningor, the Georgian Ministry of Defense is building fortifications. In all the border villages are Georgia has constructed warehouses for the storage of small arms," said the president.
According to him, all these actions lead to the conclusion that they are directed against the people of South Ossetia, which two days later will mark the 22nd anniversary of the formation of the Republic.
"For all these years we have been expressing the principles of entrenchment of our statehood and good relations with other countries. We have always been following peace. War will never lead to anything good; there are victims on both sides. And we have to protect our people," emphasized the president.
He has underscored that today is not the time for "saber-rattling"
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
September 18, 2012
‘Georgia gearing up for new war’ - S. Ossetia leader
The president of South Ossetia has told international intermediaries that the activity near his country’s border suggests that Georgia is readying for a new war.
Leonid Tibilov told the representatives of the European Union, OSCE and United Nations that South Ossetian intelligence possessed serious information that the Georgian side was building fortifications and creating ammunition dumps in the villages near the border between the two countries. He added that such events invoked thoughts that Georgia plans a military action against the people of South Ossetia.
Tibilov told the foreign diplomats that his country will remain in a position of peaceful coexistence with other nations and the responsibility for all provocations and threats must be put on the current leadership of Georgia.
The intermediaries’ visit to the South Ossetian capital Tskhinval was held ahead of the so-called Geneva International Discussion on the Georgian Crisis – the multinational forum tasked with the aim of improving security and the humanitarian conditions in the region.
In August this year, Russian Foreign Ministry officials said that Georgian authorities were still considering using force against South Ossetia and Abkhazia – two breakaway states that were officially recognized independent by Russia and several other states after South Ossetia in 2008 repelled, with Russian help, Georgian aggression that sought to reclaim the republic as its territory. Russian diplomats pointed out that official Tbilisi was inflating fears about the threat from Russia ahead of October’s parliamentary vote.
Russia sees South Ossetia as its principal ally in the region and renders significant help to the republic. This year Moscow allocated 9 billion rubles (US$298.8 million) for the restoration of South Ossetia, and another 8.5 billion rubles ($282.2 million) will be provided to the republic by 2013.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
September 17, 2012
If Assad is ousted, radical Islamists will take over Syria – Russian MP
====
US officials mistook their connection with the small group that came to power in post-Gaddafi Libya for the backing of the country’s people. Those relationships have further frayed, with many Libyan families losing family members in US and NATO military actions...
====
The chair of the Russian parliamentary committee for foreign affairs warned that the fall of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria would lead to a second Iraq, with Muslim extremists inevitably seizing power.
In a recent Web article, Aleksey Pushkov wrote that such a scenario would be almost certain to take place if Assad were ousted, as it is well-known that radical Muslim groups are operating inside Syria: “And instead the secular rational state that we had in Syria under Assad, where all ethnic and religious groups lived in peace and accord, we will get a second Iraq.â€
The Russian politician went on to argue that Russia had repeatedly warned Western states, who are blinded by “the narrowness of their minds†and political calculations, and are incapable of heeding such warnings.
There are no guarantees that whoever replaced Assad would not immediately turn their guns against the United States, even though the Washington is actively aiding rebel forces, Pushkov said. He cited the current situation in Libya as an example, claiming that Libyans showed no gratitude for America’s role in the overthrow of the Muammar Gaddafi regime.
“Yes, from Libya to Syria the insurgents can demand support, weapons, money, a ground invasion and air force operations from the United States, they are ready to use all this to seize the power in the country, but the majority, if not the absolute majority of population in these countries have no good feelings whatsoever towards the US,†he wrote.
He went on to explain that US officials mistook their connection with the small group that came to power in post-Gaddafi Libya for the backing of the country’s people. Those relationships have further frayed, with many Libyan families losing family members in US and NATO military actions, the Russian MP said.
The parliamentarian also accused the West of a double standard in protecting activists and artists who attack Islam, as happened with the American-made film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that recently sparked widespread protests and violence in the Muslim world.
“This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is not covering a lot of other things that are considered banned in the West. Otherwise they would not be so eager in attempts to put Julian Assange in jail,†Pushkov said.
“Attacks on Islam and its sacred things – this is not the freedom of speech but the freedom of hatred,†he wrote.
============
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
September 17, 2012
If Assad is ousted, radical Islamists will take over Syria – Russian MP
====
US officials mistook their connection with the small group that came to power in post-Gaddafi Libya for the backing of the country’s people. Those relationships have further frayed, with many Libyan families losing family members in US and NATO military actions...
====
The chair of the Russian parliamentary committee for foreign affairs warned that the fall of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria would lead to a second Iraq, with Muslim extremists inevitably seizing power.
In a recent Web article, Aleksey Pushkov wrote that such a scenario would be almost certain to take place if Assad were ousted, as it is well-known that radical Muslim groups are operating inside Syria: “And instead the secular rational state that we had in Syria under Assad, where all ethnic and religious groups lived in peace and accord, we will get a second Iraq.â€
The Russian politician went on to argue that Russia had repeatedly warned Western states, who are blinded by “the narrowness of their minds†and political calculations, and are incapable of heeding such warnings.
There are no guarantees that whoever replaced Assad would not immediately turn their guns against the United States, even though the Washington is actively aiding rebel forces, Pushkov said. He cited the current situation in Libya as an example, claiming that Libyans showed no gratitude for America’s role in the overthrow of the Muammar Gaddafi regime.
“Yes, from Libya to Syria the insurgents can demand support, weapons, money, a ground invasion and air force operations from the United States, they are ready to use all this to seize the power in the country, but the majority, if not the absolute majority of population in these countries have no good feelings whatsoever towards the US,†he wrote.
He went on to explain that US officials mistook their connection with the small group that came to power in post-Gaddafi Libya for the backing of the country’s people. Those relationships have further frayed, with many Libyan families losing family members in US and NATO military actions, the Russian MP said.
The parliamentarian also accused the West of a double standard in protecting activists and artists who attack Islam, as happened with the American-made film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that recently sparked widespread protests and violence in the Muslim world.
“This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is not covering a lot of other things that are considered banned in the West. Otherwise they would not be so eager in attempts to put Julian Assange in jail,†Pushkov said.
“Attacks on Islam and its sacred things – this is not the freedom of speech but the freedom of hatred,†he wrote.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 18, 2012
NATO: secret mission in Syria
John Robles
Recorded on September 3, 2012
Audio at URL above
Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO. Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically and using Syria for that purpose.
PART I
On July 4th Rasmussen talked about global NATO. At the same time another NATO official talked about closer cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council. What can you tell us about that?
It's very good of you to make that connection, incidentally. The speech you are alluding to by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, I did a work on it, it is a very brief speech by the way, and I believe I counted 27 times he where used the words global, globally, international and world - in reference to NATO. So, the so called North Atlantic Treaty Organization has appropriated or arrogated unto itself the right to be a global military intervention force. And the Persian Gulf is one of the key geopolitically strategic areas where they are concentrating.
And this is, again, in cahoots with the United States talking about perhaps expanding the deployment of the so called X-band portable missile shield radar sites of the sort that were placed in Turkey this year or in Israel four years ago into the Persian Gulf, into one of the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, as the U.S. is exporting Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors in those countries. So we are talking about a major military buildup - anti-missile, naval and other forms of military buildup - in the Persian Gulf states which are linked to NATO under what is called the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004, which was an overt effort by NATO to replicate other partnership programs around the world focusing on the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
I read somewhere that someone was calling for Israel to join NATO. Is that realistic, do you think?
There was an article about two days ago, if I’m not incorrect - the time zones are different of course - in Ha'aretz, the leading Israeli daily newspaper, calling for just that, for the formal inclusion of Israel into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization vis-à-vis the confrontation with Iran, which would inevitably then pull the entire NATO alliance, including nuclear powers the U.S., France and Britain, into any military conflict that could be initiated by Israel against Iran. It's not the first time statements of this sort have being made. Indeed, Israel is a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue, a military partnership with NATO. It was the first country to be granted an individual partnership initiative under the rubric of the Mediterranean Dialogue.
It is the only country in the Middle East, I don’t know how many of your listeners know this, that is not subordinated to the Pentagon’s Central Command which takes in all the rest of the Middle East, as a matter of fact, from Egypt all the way to, say, Kazakhstan. Israel alone remains under U.S. European Command area of responsibility and the chief military commander of European Command, EUCOM, is simultaneously the chief military commander of NATO in Europe, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. So that Israel has a very unique relationship with NATO, to begin with. And because of its geographical situation it may not be possible to be incorporated as a full member state, but politically and ultimately militarily it has functioned as such for a long time.
A lot of eyes right now are on the upcoming presidential elections in the U.S. How would the current plans of NATO change if Republican Mitt Romney is elected president?
What we’ve seen since the creation of NATO in 1949, initially by a Democratic president, Harry Truman, but its first military commander – Supreme Allied Commander Europe - was Dwight D. Eisenhower who would succeed Truman as the president of the United States as a Republican. Whatever differences exist domestically between the two major political parties and whatever shades of difference may exist between them on international affairs, one thing that is invariable and uniform is the endorsement of NATO as the U.S.’s military arm in Europe and as we’ve seen since the Afghan operation began almost 11 years ago increasingly in the Middle East, Asia and, with the war against Libya last year, in Africa. So I wouldn’t expect to see any substantial difference, not even a shade of difference to be honest between a second Obama or a first Romney administration in relation to NATO.
You’ve heard about his comments regarding Russia being geopolitical enemy number 1 etc. What do you make of those? Do you think it is just rhetoric? Or do you think he is really serious and if he becomes president, he is going to take an extremely hard line towards the countries he stated he would?
It's both. It is rhetorical and it's meant to achieve short-term political gains in the presidential election in November. At the same time it is authentic and it is a serious danger. As you’ve pointed out, among the best commentaries I’ve read on the subject on Voice of Russia, sometimes rhetoric gets ahead of itself and then a person acts on their own reckless misperception or commitment to the rhetoric they’ve been espousing and I would by no means underestimate the danger of Romney administration in terms of becoming even more provocative and even more bellicose towards Russia. And that’s a distinct possibility and it's definitely a factor in the presidential election.
How do Americans feel about that?
About the question of baiting Russia, baiting the Russian bear again as though we're living in the very depths of the Cold War and in many ways even worse? I wish I could tell you my fellow Americans have a decided opinion one way or any other on the matter, but our news media is such in this country, if I may speak poorly of your colleagues across the ocean, that superficial issues are dwelled on. Media event such as the Clint Eastwood speech at the Republican National Convention for example grab all the headlines and substantive issues of the sort you've raised tend to be buried and people either don’t hear about them or hearing about them don’t pay particular attention to them. That’s a tragedy.
U.S. relations towards Russia and particularly any escalation and provocations against Russia, which are plenty bad as they are, between the world’s two major nuclear powers, let's be frank about that, is a matter of the outmost importance and certainly deserves a lot more attention than it's receiving in the media and as a result the average American voter, when they walk in the polling booth in November, on their list of priorities Russian-American relations are going to be very low if they exist at all.
Ok, Rick is there anything else that you’d like to finish up with?
No, but again I want to commend the Voice of Russia on it excellent coverage of international affairs, buut its very perceptive reporting on events within my country. Oftentimes we don’t read comparable coverage from local news sources.
So, you are saying to get good news on the US you have to…
Go to the other side of the world.
============
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
September 18, 2012
NATO: secret mission in Syria
John Robles
Recorded on September 3, 2012
Audio at URL above
Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO. Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically and using Syria for that purpose.
PART I
On July 4th Rasmussen talked about global NATO. At the same time another NATO official talked about closer cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council. What can you tell us about that?
It's very good of you to make that connection, incidentally. The speech you are alluding to by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, I did a work on it, it is a very brief speech by the way, and I believe I counted 27 times he where used the words global, globally, international and world - in reference to NATO. So, the so called North Atlantic Treaty Organization has appropriated or arrogated unto itself the right to be a global military intervention force. And the Persian Gulf is one of the key geopolitically strategic areas where they are concentrating.
And this is, again, in cahoots with the United States talking about perhaps expanding the deployment of the so called X-band portable missile shield radar sites of the sort that were placed in Turkey this year or in Israel four years ago into the Persian Gulf, into one of the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, as the U.S. is exporting Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors in those countries. So we are talking about a major military buildup - anti-missile, naval and other forms of military buildup - in the Persian Gulf states which are linked to NATO under what is called the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004, which was an overt effort by NATO to replicate other partnership programs around the world focusing on the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
I read somewhere that someone was calling for Israel to join NATO. Is that realistic, do you think?
There was an article about two days ago, if I’m not incorrect - the time zones are different of course - in Ha'aretz, the leading Israeli daily newspaper, calling for just that, for the formal inclusion of Israel into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization vis-à-vis the confrontation with Iran, which would inevitably then pull the entire NATO alliance, including nuclear powers the U.S., France and Britain, into any military conflict that could be initiated by Israel against Iran. It's not the first time statements of this sort have being made. Indeed, Israel is a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue, a military partnership with NATO. It was the first country to be granted an individual partnership initiative under the rubric of the Mediterranean Dialogue.
It is the only country in the Middle East, I don’t know how many of your listeners know this, that is not subordinated to the Pentagon’s Central Command which takes in all the rest of the Middle East, as a matter of fact, from Egypt all the way to, say, Kazakhstan. Israel alone remains under U.S. European Command area of responsibility and the chief military commander of European Command, EUCOM, is simultaneously the chief military commander of NATO in Europe, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. So that Israel has a very unique relationship with NATO, to begin with. And because of its geographical situation it may not be possible to be incorporated as a full member state, but politically and ultimately militarily it has functioned as such for a long time.
A lot of eyes right now are on the upcoming presidential elections in the U.S. How would the current plans of NATO change if Republican Mitt Romney is elected president?
What we’ve seen since the creation of NATO in 1949, initially by a Democratic president, Harry Truman, but its first military commander – Supreme Allied Commander Europe - was Dwight D. Eisenhower who would succeed Truman as the president of the United States as a Republican. Whatever differences exist domestically between the two major political parties and whatever shades of difference may exist between them on international affairs, one thing that is invariable and uniform is the endorsement of NATO as the U.S.’s military arm in Europe and as we’ve seen since the Afghan operation began almost 11 years ago increasingly in the Middle East, Asia and, with the war against Libya last year, in Africa. So I wouldn’t expect to see any substantial difference, not even a shade of difference to be honest between a second Obama or a first Romney administration in relation to NATO.
You’ve heard about his comments regarding Russia being geopolitical enemy number 1 etc. What do you make of those? Do you think it is just rhetoric? Or do you think he is really serious and if he becomes president, he is going to take an extremely hard line towards the countries he stated he would?
It's both. It is rhetorical and it's meant to achieve short-term political gains in the presidential election in November. At the same time it is authentic and it is a serious danger. As you’ve pointed out, among the best commentaries I’ve read on the subject on Voice of Russia, sometimes rhetoric gets ahead of itself and then a person acts on their own reckless misperception or commitment to the rhetoric they’ve been espousing and I would by no means underestimate the danger of Romney administration in terms of becoming even more provocative and even more bellicose towards Russia. And that’s a distinct possibility and it's definitely a factor in the presidential election.
How do Americans feel about that?
About the question of baiting Russia, baiting the Russian bear again as though we're living in the very depths of the Cold War and in many ways even worse? I wish I could tell you my fellow Americans have a decided opinion one way or any other on the matter, but our news media is such in this country, if I may speak poorly of your colleagues across the ocean, that superficial issues are dwelled on. Media event such as the Clint Eastwood speech at the Republican National Convention for example grab all the headlines and substantive issues of the sort you've raised tend to be buried and people either don’t hear about them or hearing about them don’t pay particular attention to them. That’s a tragedy.
U.S. relations towards Russia and particularly any escalation and provocations against Russia, which are plenty bad as they are, between the world’s two major nuclear powers, let's be frank about that, is a matter of the outmost importance and certainly deserves a lot more attention than it's receiving in the media and as a result the average American voter, when they walk in the polling booth in November, on their list of priorities Russian-American relations are going to be very low if they exist at all.
Ok, Rick is there anything else that you’d like to finish up with?
No, but again I want to commend the Voice of Russia on it excellent coverage of international affairs, buut its very perceptive reporting on events within my country. Oftentimes we don’t read comparable coverage from local news sources.
So, you are saying to get good news on the US you have to…
Go to the other side of the world.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:31 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://cominf.
Republic News Agency (South Ossetia)
September 18, 2012
"NATO – kindergarten of the XXI Century"
Edited by RR
One of the most popular topics in the Georgian media is the Caucasus-2012 strategic command staff maneuvers, which started on September 17, 2012.
The Georgian media regularly publish articles and broadcast discussions associated with these maneuvers. The main objective of these broadcasts is to suggest the idea to Georgia and the international community that after similar maneuvers in 2008 Georgia became involved in a war with Russia and lost 20% of its original territory occupied by Moscow.
The fact that in August 2008 it was the Georgian army which attacked Russian peacekeepers who had been serving in accordance with the interstate Dagomys agreement, and it was Georgia which tried to wipe the South Ossetian capital together with its inhabitants off the map, has not been even indirectly mentioned in the Georgian media.
Last week NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen did not fail to speak on the beginning of the maneuvers in an interview to the Euro-News channel. He expressed regret that Brussels "had not received any official information from Russia" about these maneuvers, their goals and their venue.
This point of view has caused at least regret and confusion, as Russia for a long period of time has been demonstrating its openness to cooperate in various fields of international activity, and the Transcaucasian region holds a special place in this regrads.
Thus, in December 2011 Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces General Nikolai Makarov convened a briefing of foreign military attaches in Moscow. The briefing was also attended by representatives of NATO, including from the NATO Moscow Bureau for Relations with the Russian Defense Ministry.
Makarov spoke in detail about the objectives of the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers, their venue, the numerical strength and the weapons involved in the maneuvers.
Other officials of the Russian Defense Ministry, including the Commander of the Land Forces of Russia, Colonel General Vladimir Chirkov, and First Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Colonel General Alexander Postnikov, were also repeatedly telling at press conferences about the planned maneuvers.
Any sensible man would not believe that the head of a military organization like NATO did not know about the objectives, venue, time, forces and weapons, or is the alliance led by someone else?
All this leads one to believe that Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to put it mildly, is cunning or is deliberately aggravating the situation in the region.
Maybe the fact is that the head of NATO was simply childishly offended that he had not been invited to these maneuvers as an honored guest. In accordance with international law, Russia has violated nothing, as the NATO-Russia Basic Act of 1997 states that the parties are notified officially if the numerical strength exceeds more than 10 thousand servicemen (in the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers there are eight thousand military personnel involved), and the maneuvers will be conducted not only away from the borders of the NATO countries, but at a distance of 200 km from the border of Georgia.
At the same time, it should be noted that conducting maneuvers directly at the Russian border in the territory of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, NATO has never invited Russian military observers.
============
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@
============
Republic News Agency (South Ossetia)
September 18, 2012
"NATO – kindergarten of the XXI Century"
Edited by RR
One of the most popular topics in the Georgian media is the Caucasus-2012 strategic command staff maneuvers, which started on September 17, 2012.
The Georgian media regularly publish articles and broadcast discussions associated with these maneuvers. The main objective of these broadcasts is to suggest the idea to Georgia and the international community that after similar maneuvers in 2008 Georgia became involved in a war with Russia and lost 20% of its original territory occupied by Moscow.
The fact that in August 2008 it was the Georgian army which attacked Russian peacekeepers who had been serving in accordance with the interstate Dagomys agreement, and it was Georgia which tried to wipe the South Ossetian capital together with its inhabitants off the map, has not been even indirectly mentioned in the Georgian media.
Last week NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen did not fail to speak on the beginning of the maneuvers in an interview to the Euro-News channel. He expressed regret that Brussels "had not received any official information from Russia" about these maneuvers, their goals and their venue.
This point of view has caused at least regret and confusion, as Russia for a long period of time has been demonstrating its openness to cooperate in various fields of international activity, and the Transcaucasian region holds a special place in this regrads.
Thus, in December 2011 Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces General Nikolai Makarov convened a briefing of foreign military attaches in Moscow. The briefing was also attended by representatives of NATO, including from the NATO Moscow Bureau for Relations with the Russian Defense Ministry.
Makarov spoke in detail about the objectives of the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers, their venue, the numerical strength and the weapons involved in the maneuvers.
Other officials of the Russian Defense Ministry, including the Commander of the Land Forces of Russia, Colonel General Vladimir Chirkov, and First Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Colonel General Alexander Postnikov, were also repeatedly telling at press conferences about the planned maneuvers.
Any sensible man would not believe that the head of a military organization like NATO did not know about the objectives, venue, time, forces and weapons, or is the alliance led by someone else?
All this leads one to believe that Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to put it mildly, is cunning or is deliberately aggravating the situation in the region.
Maybe the fact is that the head of NATO was simply childishly offended that he had not been invited to these maneuvers as an honored guest. In accordance with international law, Russia has violated nothing, as the NATO-Russia Basic Act of 1997 states that the parties are notified officially if the numerical strength exceeds more than 10 thousand servicemen (in the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers there are eight thousand military personnel involved), and the maneuvers will be conducted not only away from the borders of the NATO countries, but at a distance of 200 km from the border of Georgia.
At the same time, it should be noted that conducting maneuvers directly at the Russian border in the territory of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, NATO has never invited Russian military observers.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:31 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 18, 2012
One more radar to strengthen the system
Andrey Karneyev
====
Last summer the Pentagon announced its plans to create an advanced missile defense system in the Asian-Pacific region. In the next few years a chain of modern missile defense radars can be deployed from the North of Japan through its Southern islands to the Philippines. Together with the missile systems and the ships the radars will form a joint system that allows intercepting ballistic missiles.
"Without acknowledging it, the system is targeted against China. And practically nobody doubts that...[T]he USA is not prepared to acknowledge China as an equal partner and not ready to have a mutual nuclear deterrence or strategic partnership with China..."
====
Leon Panetta, the head of the Pentagon, announced that Japan and the US signed an agreement to deploy the second element of the American missile defense system on Japanese territory. Washington and Tokyo assured China that the missile defense system was not targeted against it. However, experts are convinced that Beijing will view with caution these steps towards deploying a new missile defense element.
Panetta believes that deploying a new early warning radar in Japan will improve the possibilities of defense against the threat of a missile strike from Chinese territory against Japanese islands as well as the continental US. The parties still have to decide on the location of the new radar.
However, according to military experts most likely the new radar will be located in the South of the country. Today US Navy ships equipped with Aegis technology perform the defense role in the region. After the new station is launched in operation, these ships will gain a significant freedom of movement. It is important for the US in the framework of the "return to Asia" concept announced by Barack Obama.
Last summer the Pentagon announced its plans to create an advanced missile defense system in the Asian-Pacific region. In the next few years a chain of modern missile defense radars can be deployed from the North of Japan through its Southern islands to the Philippines. Together with the missile systems and the ships the radars will form a joint system that allows intercepting ballistic missiles.
Well-known political scientist academician Alexey Arbatov says that it is hard to believe that North Korea's missiles are the only target of this vast system.
"Of course, North Korea is not the only and perhaps not the main target of the system. Without acknowledging it, the system is targeted against China. And practically nobody doubts that. China is building up its nuclear arsenal, which still significantly lags behind that of the US. But China does not disclose the plans of the nuclear arsenal's development. And the USA is not prepared to acknowledge China as an equal partner and not ready to have a mutual nuclear deterrence or strategic partnership with China, in other words all that the US acknowledged in its relationship with the USSR and now in its relationship with Russia."
As Academician Alexey Arbatov points out, parity and mutual nuclear deterrence are not given out for free. One must win that. In its time the USSR put a lot of effort in achieving parity in the race against the US. Exactly because China claims the role of the second superpower of the XXI century, the US strives to protect its positions and not to let the growing state to take that role. As long as there is an opportunity to sustain a major strategic superiority against China, based on assault weapons as well as its missile defense system, the US will maintain its policy to deter China, paying no attention to Beijing’s concerns.
In relation to the latest events in Japanese-American military cooperation, Russia's Foreign Ministry called upon the US to take into account the security interests of other countries while making decisions on deploying missile defense elements in Japan. Moscow believes that the US should guide its efforts in the missile defense area with the real challenges and threats and act so that no damage is done to the security interests of other members of the world community.
============
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
September 18, 2012
One more radar to strengthen the system
Andrey Karneyev
====
Last summer the Pentagon announced its plans to create an advanced missile defense system in the Asian-Pacific region. In the next few years a chain of modern missile defense radars can be deployed from the North of Japan through its Southern islands to the Philippines. Together with the missile systems and the ships the radars will form a joint system that allows intercepting ballistic missiles.
"Without acknowledging it, the system is targeted against China. And practically nobody doubts that...[T]he USA is not prepared to acknowledge China as an equal partner and not ready to have a mutual nuclear deterrence or strategic partnership with China..."
====
Leon Panetta, the head of the Pentagon, announced that Japan and the US signed an agreement to deploy the second element of the American missile defense system on Japanese territory. Washington and Tokyo assured China that the missile defense system was not targeted against it. However, experts are convinced that Beijing will view with caution these steps towards deploying a new missile defense element.
Panetta believes that deploying a new early warning radar in Japan will improve the possibilities of defense against the threat of a missile strike from Chinese territory against Japanese islands as well as the continental US. The parties still have to decide on the location of the new radar.
However, according to military experts most likely the new radar will be located in the South of the country. Today US Navy ships equipped with Aegis technology perform the defense role in the region. After the new station is launched in operation, these ships will gain a significant freedom of movement. It is important for the US in the framework of the "return to Asia" concept announced by Barack Obama.
Last summer the Pentagon announced its plans to create an advanced missile defense system in the Asian-Pacific region. In the next few years a chain of modern missile defense radars can be deployed from the North of Japan through its Southern islands to the Philippines. Together with the missile systems and the ships the radars will form a joint system that allows intercepting ballistic missiles.
Well-known political scientist academician Alexey Arbatov says that it is hard to believe that North Korea's missiles are the only target of this vast system.
"Of course, North Korea is not the only and perhaps not the main target of the system. Without acknowledging it, the system is targeted against China. And practically nobody doubts that. China is building up its nuclear arsenal, which still significantly lags behind that of the US. But China does not disclose the plans of the nuclear arsenal's development. And the USA is not prepared to acknowledge China as an equal partner and not ready to have a mutual nuclear deterrence or strategic partnership with China, in other words all that the US acknowledged in its relationship with the USSR and now in its relationship with Russia."
As Academician Alexey Arbatov points out, parity and mutual nuclear deterrence are not given out for free. One must win that. In its time the USSR put a lot of effort in achieving parity in the race against the US. Exactly because China claims the role of the second superpower of the XXI century, the US strives to protect its positions and not to let the growing state to take that role. As long as there is an opportunity to sustain a major strategic superiority against China, based on assault weapons as well as its missile defense system, the US will maintain its policy to deter China, paying no attention to Beijing’s concerns.
In relation to the latest events in Japanese-American military cooperation, Russia's Foreign Ministry called upon the US to take into account the security interests of other countries while making decisions on deploying missile defense elements in Japan. Moscow believes that the US should guide its efforts in the missile defense area with the real challenges and threats and act so that no damage is done to the security interests of other members of the world community.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:31 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Blue Pilgrim" bluepilgrim1
http://chris-
http://www.globalre
Embassy Riots Pale Next to Western Powers’ State Terror Tempest
By Chris Floyd
Global Research, September 18, 2012
http://www.chris-
Sparked by a deliberate provocation put together
by Christian extremists, riots by groups of
Islamic extremists are spreading across the
world — a convenient symbiosis for both groups,
as they use each other’s actions to “justify”
their hysterically constricted worldviews.
There is an added layer to the reaction in the
Muslim countries, as the extremists there can
draw on the seething resentments built up by the
depredations and atrocities inflicted
indiscriminately on Muslims by the Western powers
in recent decades, particularly since the launch of Terror War.
But of course these depredations and atrocities
are the work of yet another group of sectarian
extremists gripped by a hysterically constricted
worldview: the Western power elites, who are
maniacal adherents to the “Dominationist” cult.
This bizarre but very powerful sect holds that
American domination of the world, militarily and
economically, is part of the divinely ordained
structure of the universe. Those who adhere to
“Dominationist dogma” and obey the dictates of
the sect’s high priests in Washington are
rewarded; but unbelievers, heretics and apostates
are to be cast out, cursed, attacked and, when possible, destroyed.
In the last 11 years alone, state-backed
Dominationist terrorists have killed far more
innocent people than their counterparts among the
scattered clumps of Islamic extremists around the
world. More than a million people have been
killed as a result of the Dominationist terrorist
attack on Iraq, for example. Hundreds of innocent
people in Pakistan have been murdered by the
drones fired by Dominationist terrorists. Dozens
are dying monthly in violent Dominationist
attacks in Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines and elsewhere.
The senseless violence of the Dominationist sect
is well-attested. The sect’s leaders brag openly
about their use of violence; indeed, in the
constant factional jockeying for power within the
sect (a characteristic of all religious and
ideological cults, of course), would-be leaders
vie to paint themselves as the one most willing
to inflict massive death and destruction on all
those who dare challenge the Dominationist faith.
All would-be leaders trumpet their willingness —
their eagerness — to eschew mere man-made laws as
they do “whatever it takes” to defend the faith
and advance Dominationist supremacy over the
earth. Torture, kidnapping, assassination and
mass destruction are all considered divinely
justified by the Dominationist extremists — and
by the millions of people who actively support the factions within the sect.
In fact, the Dominationist extremists have far
more support in their native lands than the
riot-provoking Islamic extremists have in theirs.
Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence, even in
response to the relentless, murderous
provocations of the Dominationists — as anyone
who actually lives among large numbers of Muslims
(as I do) knows perfectly well. Nor are the vast
majority of Muslims taken by cheap tricks like
the video posted by extremist Christians. As
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad notes in an excellent analysis
in the Guardian, “only a few thousand” Muslims —
out of 1.6 billion — have taken part in the
protests, which, he points out, are being
exploited by fundamentalist Salafi sects that
have been marginalized by the Arab Spring
revolutions and are now trying to claw into positions of power.
We might also note that the Dominationists have
made common cause with violent Salafis time and
time again over years — e.g., in Afghanistan
during the Soviet period, in Iraq during the
“surge,” and today in Syria. The symbiosis of
violent extremists — Islamic, Christian, Jewish,
Hindu, Dominationist and others — is also a
well-attested fact of history — and of human
nature. Because at bottom, all of them share one
fundamental, overriding principle, the common
core of their faith (whatever its outward
flourishes might be): the holiness of violence,
the enforced assertion and/or imposition of their
worldview by the repression or destruction of others.
As I said, it is very rare to find a Muslim who
actually holds such a view, or who supports any
group that does. But you will find millions and
millions of people in the West who believe that
the Dominationist extremists are completely
justified — even divinely justified — in their
terrorist actions. In fact, we will soon see more
than 100 million Americans go to the polls to
vote for one of these state-terrorist factions
who openly support torture, war and murder in the
name of their primitive faith … and have
history’s biggest war machine to back them up.
That’s a bit more scary to me than a few thousand
marginalized, powerless people taking the bait of
foreign provocateurs and local manipulators in a
spate of riots. These outbursts are
reprehensible, of course — another deadly
ratcheting up in the endless, symbiotic cycle of
Terror War violence that will do no one any good
(except for the extremist elites, on all sides,
who feast on blood and ruin). But set against the
massively supported, millions-killing terrorism
of the Dominationists, the riots are like a whisper in the howling of a storm.
http://www.globalre
Embassy Riots Pale Next to Western Powers’ State Terror Tempest
By Chris Floyd
Global Research, September 18, 2012
http://www.chris-
Sparked by a deliberate provocation put together
by Christian extremists, riots by groups of
Islamic extremists are spreading across the
world — a convenient symbiosis for both groups,
as they use each other’s actions to “justify”
their hysterically constricted worldviews.
There is an added layer to the reaction in the
Muslim countries, as the extremists there can
draw on the seething resentments built up by the
depredations and atrocities inflicted
indiscriminately on Muslims by the Western powers
in recent decades, particularly since the launch of Terror War.
But of course these depredations and atrocities
are the work of yet another group of sectarian
extremists gripped by a hysterically constricted
worldview: the Western power elites, who are
maniacal adherents to the “Dominationist” cult.
This bizarre but very powerful sect holds that
American domination of the world, militarily and
economically, is part of the divinely ordained
structure of the universe. Those who adhere to
“Dominationist dogma” and obey the dictates of
the sect’s high priests in Washington are
rewarded; but unbelievers, heretics and apostates
are to be cast out, cursed, attacked and, when possible, destroyed.
In the last 11 years alone, state-backed
Dominationist terrorists have killed far more
innocent people than their counterparts among the
scattered clumps of Islamic extremists around the
world. More than a million people have been
killed as a result of the Dominationist terrorist
attack on Iraq, for example. Hundreds of innocent
people in Pakistan have been murdered by the
drones fired by Dominationist terrorists. Dozens
are dying monthly in violent Dominationist
attacks in Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines and elsewhere.
The senseless violence of the Dominationist sect
is well-attested. The sect’s leaders brag openly
about their use of violence; indeed, in the
constant factional jockeying for power within the
sect (a characteristic of all religious and
ideological cults, of course), would-be leaders
vie to paint themselves as the one most willing
to inflict massive death and destruction on all
those who dare challenge the Dominationist faith.
All would-be leaders trumpet their willingness —
their eagerness — to eschew mere man-made laws as
they do “whatever it takes” to defend the faith
and advance Dominationist supremacy over the
earth. Torture, kidnapping, assassination and
mass destruction are all considered divinely
justified by the Dominationist extremists — and
by the millions of people who actively support the factions within the sect.
In fact, the Dominationist extremists have far
more support in their native lands than the
riot-provoking Islamic extremists have in theirs.
Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence, even in
response to the relentless, murderous
provocations of the Dominationists — as anyone
who actually lives among large numbers of Muslims
(as I do) knows perfectly well. Nor are the vast
majority of Muslims taken by cheap tricks like
the video posted by extremist Christians. As
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad notes in an excellent analysis
in the Guardian, “only a few thousand” Muslims —
out of 1.6 billion — have taken part in the
protests, which, he points out, are being
exploited by fundamentalist Salafi sects that
have been marginalized by the Arab Spring
revolutions and are now trying to claw into positions of power.
We might also note that the Dominationists have
made common cause with violent Salafis time and
time again over years — e.g., in Afghanistan
during the Soviet period, in Iraq during the
“surge,” and today in Syria. The symbiosis of
violent extremists — Islamic, Christian, Jewish,
Hindu, Dominationist and others — is also a
well-attested fact of history — and of human
nature. Because at bottom, all of them share one
fundamental, overriding principle, the common
core of their faith (whatever its outward
flourishes might be): the holiness of violence,
the enforced assertion and/or imposition of their
worldview by the repression or destruction of others.
As I said, it is very rare to find a Muslim who
actually holds such a view, or who supports any
group that does. But you will find millions and
millions of people in the West who believe that
the Dominationist extremists are completely
justified — even divinely justified — in their
terrorist actions. In fact, we will soon see more
than 100 million Americans go to the polls to
vote for one of these state-terrorist factions
who openly support torture, war and murder in the
name of their primitive faith … and have
history’s biggest war machine to back them up.
That’s a bit more scary to me than a few thousand
marginalized, powerless people taking the bait of
foreign provocateurs and local manipulators in a
spate of riots. These outbursts are
reprehensible, of course — another deadly
ratcheting up in the endless, symbiotic cycle of
Terror War violence that will do no one any good
(except for the extremist elites, on all sides,
who feast on blood and ruin). But set against the
massively supported, millions-killing terrorism
of the Dominationists, the riots are like a whisper in the howling of a storm.
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:51 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Global Times
September 19, 2012
Don’t harbor illusions of impartial US
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta just visited Japan and China and his position on the Diaoyu issue was intensively scrutinized by the media. But Washington's attitude still remains vague, insisting that the White House takes no position over Diaoyu's sovereignty.
But it is obvious that Washington is not so impartial between China and Japan. In other disputes China has with its neighbors, the US directly or indirectly sides with China's opponents. The question is how much weight the US will put behind Japan.
Until now Washington has been reluctant in openly supporting Japan's claim, since Tokyo's demand isn't legitimate. Also Japan hasn't been in a disadvantageous position that requires Washington to immediately step in. Moreover, the US has to take into consideration the Sino-US relationship. It doesn't want to face a strategic dilemma whether to intervene if a war breaks out between China and Japan.
The US has its strategic considerations in taking a position between China and Japan. It is impossible for China to persuade Washington to take a neutral position. The hope of such is purely an illusion, though China can urge the US to move toward a neutral position through concrete actions that show doing so is more in line with US interests.
China should take the opportunity of Panetta's visit to let the US know its will to safeguard the Diaoyu Islands and resist Japan's provocation.
As long as Japan escalates the situation, China will take ready actions. If the US does not restrain Japan but incites it to provoke China, then we will all bear the military risks.
Japan claimed the US has agreed that the Diaoyu Islands fall within the purview of the US-Japan Security Treaty. China should show its stance to the US that China rejects any military presence in Diaoyu, and it will take military actions against such moves.
Japan has the actual control of the Diaoyu Islands. The US and Japan can make offensive moves at will. Only through taking firm actions, can our determination be firmer and we win back the initiative.
Sacrifices will be necessary in safeguarding Diaoyu. Chinese should be prepared for it. These sacrifices will not only improve the situation we are in over the Diaoyu dispute, but also lay a solid foundation for China's global status in the future.
The US urged China and Japan to solve the dispute peacefully, and stressed it did not take a stance on the issue, which is an admission there is a dispute. It serves as a blow for Japan's right-wing forces, which claim there is no dispute on the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. It is China's attitude that made the US take this position.
The policy the US takes toward Diaoyu is far from US core interests. The US attitude can vary according to how strong China's approach is.
============
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@
============
Global Times
September 19, 2012
Don’t harbor illusions of impartial US
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta just visited Japan and China and his position on the Diaoyu issue was intensively scrutinized by the media. But Washington's attitude still remains vague, insisting that the White House takes no position over Diaoyu's sovereignty.
But it is obvious that Washington is not so impartial between China and Japan. In other disputes China has with its neighbors, the US directly or indirectly sides with China's opponents. The question is how much weight the US will put behind Japan.
Until now Washington has been reluctant in openly supporting Japan's claim, since Tokyo's demand isn't legitimate. Also Japan hasn't been in a disadvantageous position that requires Washington to immediately step in. Moreover, the US has to take into consideration the Sino-US relationship. It doesn't want to face a strategic dilemma whether to intervene if a war breaks out between China and Japan.
The US has its strategic considerations in taking a position between China and Japan. It is impossible for China to persuade Washington to take a neutral position. The hope of such is purely an illusion, though China can urge the US to move toward a neutral position through concrete actions that show doing so is more in line with US interests.
China should take the opportunity of Panetta's visit to let the US know its will to safeguard the Diaoyu Islands and resist Japan's provocation.
As long as Japan escalates the situation, China will take ready actions. If the US does not restrain Japan but incites it to provoke China, then we will all bear the military risks.
Japan claimed the US has agreed that the Diaoyu Islands fall within the purview of the US-Japan Security Treaty. China should show its stance to the US that China rejects any military presence in Diaoyu, and it will take military actions against such moves.
Japan has the actual control of the Diaoyu Islands. The US and Japan can make offensive moves at will. Only through taking firm actions, can our determination be firmer and we win back the initiative.
Sacrifices will be necessary in safeguarding Diaoyu. Chinese should be prepared for it. These sacrifices will not only improve the situation we are in over the Diaoyu dispute, but also lay a solid foundation for China's global status in the future.
The US urged China and Japan to solve the dispute peacefully, and stressed it did not take a stance on the issue, which is an admission there is a dispute. It serves as a blow for Japan's right-wing forces, which claim there is no dispute on the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. It is China's attitude that made the US take this position.
The policy the US takes toward Diaoyu is far from US core interests. The US attitude can vary according to how strong China's approach is.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:51 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
September 18, 2012
Reset to Reroute: Should Russia rethink Western relations?
====
“In the first years of Perestroika, Russia was definitely Western-oriented; Gorbachev had been speaking about a ‘common European home,’ while Yeltsin actually applied for NATO and EU membership."
The only result of these efforts was NATO’s eastward expansion.
Obama’s excuse for missing the event [APEC meeting in Vladivostok] was the upcoming presidential elections. However, it was not lost on some political analysts that Washington may have been uncomfortable with the idea of being in attendance at a summit where its superpower status would be partially eclipsed by other rising stars.
====
Vyacheslav Nikonov, Deputy Head of Foreign Affairs Committee, tells RT that Russia should start looking eastward to fortify its foreign policy aims.
The Duma official said Russia should become a self-sufficient center of international strength.
“Russia cannot become anything else, there is no alternative†Nikonov told RT in a telephone interview. “We cannot be integrated into the European Union or NATO; we are too big and too Russian for that.â€
Russia is doomed to be an independent, central power, he added.
Nikonov then provided some historical perspective to Russia’s timely turn to the East.
“In the first years of Perestroika, Russia was definitely Western-oriented; Gorbachev had been speaking about a ‘common European home,’ while Yeltsin actually applied for NATO and EU membership,†he noted.
The only result of these efforts was NATO’s eastward expansion, he added.
Nikonov then provided a solid case for Russia looking to the East for both security and economic advantages.
“Today, there is a move toward East Asia, which is quite logical. More than half of the global economy, and more than half of the global population lives in the Asia Pacific region. So for Russia it is very important to look eastward and to position itself not just as European or Eurasian power, but also as a Europe-Pacific power.â€
Russia and China are sealing their relationship not just with words, but with concrete partnerships, including in the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In considering where America fits into these regional alliances, it is telling that US President Barack Obama took a pass on this year’s APEC meeting, held in the Russian port city of Vladivostok.
Obama’s excuse for missing the event was the upcoming presidential elections. However, it was not lost on some political analysts that Washington may have been uncomfortable with the idea of being in attendance at a summit where its superpower status would be partially eclipsed by other rising stars.
This underscores the advantages of Russia teaming up with China on the global stage.
Nikonov pointed to the Great Wall of China to support the claim that the Asian country has for millennia been concerned about protecting its northern territory from invasion. Today, that fear is greatly diminished and now China can focus attention on other problem spots.
“Beijing understands that maintaining healthy relations with Russia is very important, and today Russia-China relations are at their best ever,†Nikonov confirmed.
Asked about the future of Russia-US relations in light of the upcoming presidential elections in Washington, he believes “it doesn’t matter which administration is in power.â€
“There are different Democrats and there are different Republicans,†he told RT. “Historically, however, it was easier for Russia and the Soviet Union to deal with the Republicans, which represent the more pragmatic party with less interest in a human rights agenda.â€
Nikonov blamed the campaign season for the increase in rhetoric aimed against Russia, specifically from the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, who called Russia America’s “number one geopolitical foe.â€
“The Obama administration is protecting his record and the reset in US-Russian relations has been one of his real achievements,†he said. “And of course the Republicans in this tough campaign will attack Obama on every foreign policy issue, including the reset.â€
Nikonov then mentioned the Russia-US reset, suggesting that it may be time to reconsider that as well.
“We should probably think more strategically and not just reset the computer, but perhaps consider changing the hard disc,†he quipped.
Relations between Moscow and Washington remain strained over US plans to build a missile defense shield in former Warsaw Pact country – without Russia’s participation.
Despite Moscow’s warning that the system could trigger “another arms race,†US and NATO officials seem unfazed by such a grim prospect.
Nevertheless, Russia should not take America’s tough stance too personally.
After all, it may be simply reacting to a challenging domestic situation.
“The domestic situation inside of the US is not really favorable for an improvement of relations with any country since America has become inward looking and very xenophobic,†Nikonov concluded.
============
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
September 18, 2012
Reset to Reroute: Should Russia rethink Western relations?
====
“In the first years of Perestroika, Russia was definitely Western-oriented; Gorbachev had been speaking about a ‘common European home,’ while Yeltsin actually applied for NATO and EU membership."
The only result of these efforts was NATO’s eastward expansion.
Obama’s excuse for missing the event [APEC meeting in Vladivostok] was the upcoming presidential elections. However, it was not lost on some political analysts that Washington may have been uncomfortable with the idea of being in attendance at a summit where its superpower status would be partially eclipsed by other rising stars.
====
Vyacheslav Nikonov, Deputy Head of Foreign Affairs Committee, tells RT that Russia should start looking eastward to fortify its foreign policy aims.
The Duma official said Russia should become a self-sufficient center of international strength.
“Russia cannot become anything else, there is no alternative†Nikonov told RT in a telephone interview. “We cannot be integrated into the European Union or NATO; we are too big and too Russian for that.â€
Russia is doomed to be an independent, central power, he added.
Nikonov then provided some historical perspective to Russia’s timely turn to the East.
“In the first years of Perestroika, Russia was definitely Western-oriented; Gorbachev had been speaking about a ‘common European home,’ while Yeltsin actually applied for NATO and EU membership,†he noted.
The only result of these efforts was NATO’s eastward expansion, he added.
Nikonov then provided a solid case for Russia looking to the East for both security and economic advantages.
“Today, there is a move toward East Asia, which is quite logical. More than half of the global economy, and more than half of the global population lives in the Asia Pacific region. So for Russia it is very important to look eastward and to position itself not just as European or Eurasian power, but also as a Europe-Pacific power.â€
Russia and China are sealing their relationship not just with words, but with concrete partnerships, including in the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In considering where America fits into these regional alliances, it is telling that US President Barack Obama took a pass on this year’s APEC meeting, held in the Russian port city of Vladivostok.
Obama’s excuse for missing the event was the upcoming presidential elections. However, it was not lost on some political analysts that Washington may have been uncomfortable with the idea of being in attendance at a summit where its superpower status would be partially eclipsed by other rising stars.
This underscores the advantages of Russia teaming up with China on the global stage.
Nikonov pointed to the Great Wall of China to support the claim that the Asian country has for millennia been concerned about protecting its northern territory from invasion. Today, that fear is greatly diminished and now China can focus attention on other problem spots.
“Beijing understands that maintaining healthy relations with Russia is very important, and today Russia-China relations are at their best ever,†Nikonov confirmed.
Asked about the future of Russia-US relations in light of the upcoming presidential elections in Washington, he believes “it doesn’t matter which administration is in power.â€
“There are different Democrats and there are different Republicans,†he told RT. “Historically, however, it was easier for Russia and the Soviet Union to deal with the Republicans, which represent the more pragmatic party with less interest in a human rights agenda.â€
Nikonov blamed the campaign season for the increase in rhetoric aimed against Russia, specifically from the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, who called Russia America’s “number one geopolitical foe.â€
“The Obama administration is protecting his record and the reset in US-Russian relations has been one of his real achievements,†he said. “And of course the Republicans in this tough campaign will attack Obama on every foreign policy issue, including the reset.â€
Nikonov then mentioned the Russia-US reset, suggesting that it may be time to reconsider that as well.
“We should probably think more strategically and not just reset the computer, but perhaps consider changing the hard disc,†he quipped.
Relations between Moscow and Washington remain strained over US plans to build a missile defense shield in former Warsaw Pact country – without Russia’s participation.
Despite Moscow’s warning that the system could trigger “another arms race,†US and NATO officials seem unfazed by such a grim prospect.
Nevertheless, Russia should not take America’s tough stance too personally.
After all, it may be simply reacting to a challenging domestic situation.
“The domestic situation inside of the US is not really favorable for an improvement of relations with any country since America has become inward looking and very xenophobic,†Nikonov concluded.
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thefront
The Frontier Post
September 17, 2012
Hoax exposed
====
[T]he commanders of the occupation armies have in effect fought the Afghan war throughout on lies and deceptions, not on the battlefield. It is they alone and their gullible political masters who talk of successes. But even their own soldiers confide to their private interlocutors that they have lost the war.
[T]he 2014 pullout of occupation armies is a big hoax, indeed. It is not the withdrawal of victorious armies. Verily, it is an organised retreat of defeated armies.
====
The ferocious attack of Afghan Taliban on the Camp Bastion military base in Helmand province of Afghanistan is quite telltale. The base is in the employ of both the British and American armies, where Prince Harry, the third in the British line of succession, is stationed on a four-month tour of duty as well. Although he is under Taliban’s threat to his life, their spokesman has announced that Saturday’s attack on the Camp Bastion was meant to avenge the sacrilegious American film derogatory of Islam.
Whatever it is, the deadly Taliban assault has neatly knocked the bottom out of the hoax that both the British and American military high commands have been parading now for quite some time. They assert that Helmand, a hotbed of the Taliban insurgency, which has been primarily under the operational command of the British military since 2006, has been pacified. So much so, the British military commanders have lately been telling their political bosses that the province stands so secured that Afghan security forces can now easily control it.
Indeed, on this plea they have just recently even recommended to their government that many more than 500 British soldiers from their 9,000-strong military contingent in Afghanistan they had originally planned could be pulled out by this year’s end. The attack puts paid to their pretence. But then the commanders of the occupation armies have in effect fought the Afghan war throughout on lies and deceptions, not on the battlefield. It is they alone and their gullible political masters who talk of successes. But even their own soldiers confide to their private interlocutors that they have lost the war.
And for this, the military commanders and their naïve governments are squarely to blame. They showed neither the spine nor the initiative when they should have. They just kept fiddling with the war, while the Taliban and other insurgent groups were all the while regrouping in their erstwhile strongholds and rearming lethally. And when at long last they ventured out of their Kabul and Bagram redoubts in 2006, they had already lost the war.
Not only were the Taliban and other insurgents entrenched in their bastions unconquerably and resurgent, expanding beyond their strongholds, they were also running parallel governments over a vast stretch of land.
In itself, the 2014 pullout of occupation armies is a big hoax, indeed. It is not the withdrawal of victorious armies. Verily, it is an organised retreat of defeated armies.
Some in fact have already begun the retreat. The Dutch and the Canadians have long gone, leaving behind their operational grounds of Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces respectively in turmoil and in the hands of insurgents.
The French are flapping their wings feverishly to get out all their troops by this year’s end. Not much could be said about the presence of the other occupation armies till 2014 as public opinion in all the contributing nations is veering round to a quick pullout of their soldiers. In America itself, public pressure is building up fast to this effect.
This public sentiment has been spurred greatly by the growing murderous attacks of Afghan security personnel on their foreign trainers and mates. In fact, the Afghan war, by every account, is now an increasingly unpopular war in every country that has contributed troops to the occupation coalition. And to the great discomfiture of its military commanders and their governments, who all have all long fed their peoples with lies and deceits on their war efforts. They will have much explaining to do to their publics on the expending of so much of blood and treasure on a war that palpably is leaving Afghanistan in no peace but only in turbulence. A patchwork of what the occupiers are boastfully, albeit deceitfully, branding as the Afghan national army and police predictably will be unable to withstand the fury of the resistance forces that are giving such a tough time to highly-trained occupiers laced with arms from foot to teeth.
Perceptive Afghanistan-
============
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 Frontier Post
September 17, 2012
Hoax exposed
====
[T]he commanders of the occupation armies have in effect fought the Afghan war throughout on lies and deceptions, not on the battlefield. It is they alone and their gullible political masters who talk of successes. But even their own soldiers confide to their private interlocutors that they have lost the war.
[T]he 2014 pullout of occupation armies is a big hoax, indeed. It is not the withdrawal of victorious armies. Verily, it is an organised retreat of defeated armies.
====
The ferocious attack of Afghan Taliban on the Camp Bastion military base in Helmand province of Afghanistan is quite telltale. The base is in the employ of both the British and American armies, where Prince Harry, the third in the British line of succession, is stationed on a four-month tour of duty as well. Although he is under Taliban’s threat to his life, their spokesman has announced that Saturday’s attack on the Camp Bastion was meant to avenge the sacrilegious American film derogatory of Islam.
Whatever it is, the deadly Taliban assault has neatly knocked the bottom out of the hoax that both the British and American military high commands have been parading now for quite some time. They assert that Helmand, a hotbed of the Taliban insurgency, which has been primarily under the operational command of the British military since 2006, has been pacified. So much so, the British military commanders have lately been telling their political bosses that the province stands so secured that Afghan security forces can now easily control it.
Indeed, on this plea they have just recently even recommended to their government that many more than 500 British soldiers from their 9,000-strong military contingent in Afghanistan they had originally planned could be pulled out by this year’s end. The attack puts paid to their pretence. But then the commanders of the occupation armies have in effect fought the Afghan war throughout on lies and deceptions, not on the battlefield. It is they alone and their gullible political masters who talk of successes. But even their own soldiers confide to their private interlocutors that they have lost the war.
And for this, the military commanders and their naïve governments are squarely to blame. They showed neither the spine nor the initiative when they should have. They just kept fiddling with the war, while the Taliban and other insurgent groups were all the while regrouping in their erstwhile strongholds and rearming lethally. And when at long last they ventured out of their Kabul and Bagram redoubts in 2006, they had already lost the war.
Not only were the Taliban and other insurgents entrenched in their bastions unconquerably and resurgent, expanding beyond their strongholds, they were also running parallel governments over a vast stretch of land.
In itself, the 2014 pullout of occupation armies is a big hoax, indeed. It is not the withdrawal of victorious armies. Verily, it is an organised retreat of defeated armies.
Some in fact have already begun the retreat. The Dutch and the Canadians have long gone, leaving behind their operational grounds of Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces respectively in turmoil and in the hands of insurgents.
The French are flapping their wings feverishly to get out all their troops by this year’s end. Not much could be said about the presence of the other occupation armies till 2014 as public opinion in all the contributing nations is veering round to a quick pullout of their soldiers. In America itself, public pressure is building up fast to this effect.
This public sentiment has been spurred greatly by the growing murderous attacks of Afghan security personnel on their foreign trainers and mates. In fact, the Afghan war, by every account, is now an increasingly unpopular war in every country that has contributed troops to the occupation coalition. And to the great discomfiture of its military commanders and their governments, who all have all long fed their peoples with lies and deceits on their war efforts. They will have much explaining to do to their publics on the expending of so much of blood and treasure on a war that palpably is leaving Afghanistan in no peace but only in turbulence. A patchwork of what the occupiers are boastfully, albeit deceitfully, branding as the Afghan national army and police predictably will be unable to withstand the fury of the resistance forces that are giving such a tough time to highly-trained occupiers laced with arms from foot to teeth.
Perceptive Afghanistan-
============
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@
============
Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:37 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thenews.
The News International
September 19, 2012
A self-made illusion
Roedad Khan*
====
Democracy in Afghanistan is a self-made illusion. It is a Western-imposed farce that will be swept away if America and its allies stop propping it up with their bayonets.
The Islamic world contains the world’s greatest concentration of un-elected monarchs, military dictators, and usurpers, all supported by America. None would survive without American help...We in Pakistan have suffered four military coups, all supported by the US...
John Quincy Adam’s caution to America not to go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy or securing American interests has been thrown to the winds. Neither Washington, nor Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world’s avenging angel.
Today the United States is once again in an expansionist mood. Iraq was but a “breakfastâ€. Afghanistan is “picnic lunchâ€. Where will Americans dine? The United States has strong teeth but a weak stomach.
====
Alexis De Tocqueville once said: “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in Americaâ€. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in his acceptance speech, did not say a word about the war in Afghanistan, as if it were a non-event, although the US still has about 90,000 troops in that country and over 2,000 Americans have died fighting a totally unjustified war.
There is clearly a conspiracy of silence about this totally unnecessary and unwinnable war. That neither Republicans nor Democrats see the war in Afghanistan as a fit subject for debate, is salt in the wound. Both seem to have adopted a collective amnesia about the war and the untold misery and havoc it has wrought.
Robert McNamara, the brilliant secretary of defence for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, helped lead America into Vietnam. McNamara believed that the fight against communism in Asia was worth sacrificing American lives, and yet he eventually came to believe that America had stumbled into a war – in which it had lost over 58,000 men and women – that was, in fact, unnecessary and unwinnable. The lessons of Vietnam were forgotten.
Iraq, a secular, socialist state, was not involved in 9/11, had no links with the Al-Qaeda. Baghdad presented no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. The truth is that what was at stake was not an imminent military or terrorist threat but the economic imperatives of US growth. Iraq has 112 billion barrels of proven resources, or roughly 11 percent of the world’s proven supply. That is more oil than the resources of Europe and South America put together, and more than Africa and the Asia-Pacific region combined. That oil has global strategic, political and economic significance. The temptation to grab it must have been irresistible.
North Korea has admitted it has nuclear capability but it is not invaded as Iraq was. If Saddam didn’t have oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders in the Islamic world do it everyday with the blessings of the United States. Opposition to the war in the US is growing, although the primary cause for this opposition is that the cost of the war is too great and unacceptable to the American people. It is deplorable, but nonetheless, true, that what has changed public opinion in the US and its domestic political picture, is not the efforts of its intellectuals but rather the Afghans resistance which simply will not yield to American force.
The rationale for Obama’s war in Afghanistan is phony. American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan know it. No wonder army morale is dropping. How long is it going to take for America to recognise that the war in Afghanistan is a fiasco – tragic, deeply dehumanising and ultimately unwinnable? One thing is clear, peace and stability will never resume as long as aggression continues and American soldiers remain on Afghan soil. Instead of enacting a charade, America should turn Afghanistan over to a genuine international coalition headed by the UN and get out. America has dug itself into a deep, deep hole. Playing the world’s policeman is not the answer to the catastrophe in New York. Playing the world’s policeman is what led to it.
Anti-American sentiment, now at its highest, has metastasised into violent demonstrations all over the Islamic world against a sacrilegious film. The US government has warned its citizens against travelling to Afghanistan because of the fear of being kidnapped or killed. Democracy in Afghanistan is a self-made illusion. It is a Western-imposed farce that will be swept away if America and its allies stop propping it up with their bayonets.
The Islamic world contains the world’s greatest concentration of un-elected monarchs, military dictators, and usurpers, all supported by America. None would survive without American help. Where, then, is the symbol of hope in a Muslim world ruled by US-protected and coddled, corrupt despots? We in Pakistan have suffered four military coups, all supported by the US. The result is what we have now: moving from misery to poverty and a corrupt president sitting on top of a sham democracy.
Obama has placed America on the wrong side of history. Today US foreign policy finds itself at the bottom of a slippery slope. It has assumed many of the very features of the ‘rogue nations’ against which it has rhetorically and sometimes literally done battle over the years. The legitimacy of US action in Afghanistan has vanished. Its war on terrorism has no support in the Islamic world and is fast becoming unpopular in the rest of the world. There is an old Russian saying: Once you let your feet get caught in a quagmire, your whole body will be sucked in. Today the United States seems trapped in a bad story, with no way to change the script.
Today the United States is at war in Afghanistan and our tribal area. However you title or define it, it is war, a war it cannot win. Today nationalism is among the most potent phenomena of political life in this part of the world. In the past, nationalism had succeeded in disrupting the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. If the United States persists in waging this totally unnecessary and unjustified war, it would suffer a similar fate. If America wants to make headway against Muslim rage, it will have to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people. It will have to vacate its aggression in Afghanistan and withdraw its support of tyrannies in the Muslim world.
John Quincy Adam’s caution to America not to go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy or securing American interests has been thrown to the winds. Neither Washington, nor Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world’s avenging angel. The lesson of history is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
In a memorandum addressed to the Chairman Science Board, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, wrote: “Our military expedition to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism. We may need to support an ally under attack by terrorists determined to replace the legitimate government; we may need to effect change in the governance of a country that is blatantly sustaining support for terrorism; or we may need to assist an ally who is unable to govern areas of his own country – where terrorists may recruit, train and plan without interference by the legitimate governmentâ€! It is scary.
Today the United States is once again in an expansionist mood. Iraq was but a “breakfastâ€. Afghanistan is “picnic lunchâ€. Where will Americans dine? The United States has strong teeth but a weak stomach. No wonder, it has digestive problems with Afghanistan. Be that as it may, America seems intent on using the September 11 attacks to impose what is called a ‘civilisation of fear’. Both Iran and Pakistan are now in gun sights. Obama has made it abundantly clear that American special forces in Afghanistan will strike into Pakistan, if Pakistan fell into the “wrong handsâ€. America is already at war with Pakistan in Waziristan. American drone attacks are a clear violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and are perceived quite literally as an act of war.
“The single greatest threat to (Pakistan)â€, Obama said recently, “comes from Al-Qaeda and their extremist alliesâ€. This is not true. All our major problems stem from the American occupation of Afghanistan and its frequent intrusions into our tribal territory. It has turned our tribal area into a protracted ulcer, a quagmire – a place where Pakistan is spending blood and treasure to protect American interests.
*The writer is a former federal secretary.
The News International
September 19, 2012
A self-made illusion
Roedad Khan*
====
Democracy in Afghanistan is a self-made illusion. It is a Western-imposed farce that will be swept away if America and its allies stop propping it up with their bayonets.
The Islamic world contains the world’s greatest concentration of un-elected monarchs, military dictators, and usurpers, all supported by America. None would survive without American help...We in Pakistan have suffered four military coups, all supported by the US...
John Quincy Adam’s caution to America not to go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy or securing American interests has been thrown to the winds. Neither Washington, nor Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world’s avenging angel.
Today the United States is once again in an expansionist mood. Iraq was but a “breakfastâ€. Afghanistan is “picnic lunchâ€. Where will Americans dine? The United States has strong teeth but a weak stomach.
====
Alexis De Tocqueville once said: “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in Americaâ€. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in his acceptance speech, did not say a word about the war in Afghanistan, as if it were a non-event, although the US still has about 90,000 troops in that country and over 2,000 Americans have died fighting a totally unjustified war.
There is clearly a conspiracy of silence about this totally unnecessary and unwinnable war. That neither Republicans nor Democrats see the war in Afghanistan as a fit subject for debate, is salt in the wound. Both seem to have adopted a collective amnesia about the war and the untold misery and havoc it has wrought.
Robert McNamara, the brilliant secretary of defence for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, helped lead America into Vietnam. McNamara believed that the fight against communism in Asia was worth sacrificing American lives, and yet he eventually came to believe that America had stumbled into a war – in which it had lost over 58,000 men and women – that was, in fact, unnecessary and unwinnable. The lessons of Vietnam were forgotten.
Iraq, a secular, socialist state, was not involved in 9/11, had no links with the Al-Qaeda. Baghdad presented no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. The truth is that what was at stake was not an imminent military or terrorist threat but the economic imperatives of US growth. Iraq has 112 billion barrels of proven resources, or roughly 11 percent of the world’s proven supply. That is more oil than the resources of Europe and South America put together, and more than Africa and the Asia-Pacific region combined. That oil has global strategic, political and economic significance. The temptation to grab it must have been irresistible.
North Korea has admitted it has nuclear capability but it is not invaded as Iraq was. If Saddam didn’t have oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders in the Islamic world do it everyday with the blessings of the United States. Opposition to the war in the US is growing, although the primary cause for this opposition is that the cost of the war is too great and unacceptable to the American people. It is deplorable, but nonetheless, true, that what has changed public opinion in the US and its domestic political picture, is not the efforts of its intellectuals but rather the Afghans resistance which simply will not yield to American force.
The rationale for Obama’s war in Afghanistan is phony. American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan know it. No wonder army morale is dropping. How long is it going to take for America to recognise that the war in Afghanistan is a fiasco – tragic, deeply dehumanising and ultimately unwinnable? One thing is clear, peace and stability will never resume as long as aggression continues and American soldiers remain on Afghan soil. Instead of enacting a charade, America should turn Afghanistan over to a genuine international coalition headed by the UN and get out. America has dug itself into a deep, deep hole. Playing the world’s policeman is not the answer to the catastrophe in New York. Playing the world’s policeman is what led to it.
Anti-American sentiment, now at its highest, has metastasised into violent demonstrations all over the Islamic world against a sacrilegious film. The US government has warned its citizens against travelling to Afghanistan because of the fear of being kidnapped or killed. Democracy in Afghanistan is a self-made illusion. It is a Western-imposed farce that will be swept away if America and its allies stop propping it up with their bayonets.
The Islamic world contains the world’s greatest concentration of un-elected monarchs, military dictators, and usurpers, all supported by America. None would survive without American help. Where, then, is the symbol of hope in a Muslim world ruled by US-protected and coddled, corrupt despots? We in Pakistan have suffered four military coups, all supported by the US. The result is what we have now: moving from misery to poverty and a corrupt president sitting on top of a sham democracy.
Obama has placed America on the wrong side of history. Today US foreign policy finds itself at the bottom of a slippery slope. It has assumed many of the very features of the ‘rogue nations’ against which it has rhetorically and sometimes literally done battle over the years. The legitimacy of US action in Afghanistan has vanished. Its war on terrorism has no support in the Islamic world and is fast becoming unpopular in the rest of the world. There is an old Russian saying: Once you let your feet get caught in a quagmire, your whole body will be sucked in. Today the United States seems trapped in a bad story, with no way to change the script.
Today the United States is at war in Afghanistan and our tribal area. However you title or define it, it is war, a war it cannot win. Today nationalism is among the most potent phenomena of political life in this part of the world. In the past, nationalism had succeeded in disrupting the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. If the United States persists in waging this totally unnecessary and unjustified war, it would suffer a similar fate. If America wants to make headway against Muslim rage, it will have to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people. It will have to vacate its aggression in Afghanistan and withdraw its support of tyrannies in the Muslim world.
John Quincy Adam’s caution to America not to go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy or securing American interests has been thrown to the winds. Neither Washington, nor Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world’s avenging angel. The lesson of history is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
In a memorandum addressed to the Chairman Science Board, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, wrote: “Our military expedition to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism. We may need to support an ally under attack by terrorists determined to replace the legitimate government; we may need to effect change in the governance of a country that is blatantly sustaining support for terrorism; or we may need to assist an ally who is unable to govern areas of his own country – where terrorists may recruit, train and plan without interference by the legitimate governmentâ€! It is scary.
Today the United States is once again in an expansionist mood. Iraq was but a “breakfastâ€. Afghanistan is “picnic lunchâ€. Where will Americans dine? The United States has strong teeth but a weak stomach. No wonder, it has digestive problems with Afghanistan. Be that as it may, America seems intent on using the September 11 attacks to impose what is called a ‘civilisation of fear’. Both Iran and Pakistan are now in gun sights. Obama has made it abundantly clear that American special forces in Afghanistan will strike into Pakistan, if Pakistan fell into the “wrong handsâ€. America is already at war with Pakistan in Waziristan. American drone attacks are a clear violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and are perceived quite literally as an act of war.
“The single greatest threat to (Pakistan)â€, Obama said recently, “comes from Al-Qaeda and their extremist alliesâ€. This is not true. All our major problems stem from the American occupation of Afghanistan and its frequent intrusions into our tribal territory. It has turned our tribal area into a protracted ulcer, a quagmire – a place where Pakistan is spending blood and treasure to protect American interests.
*The writer is a former federal secretary.
