See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Long Wars and Peace Prizes
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2 ... 12/long-wars-and-peace-prizes/
Published: Oct 13, 2009
Author: Jeff Huber
Post Date: 2009-10-13 19:12:04 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 112
Comments: 4
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has become the point man for the long-war mafia, delivered his ultimatum to President Barack Obama on Friday, Oct. 9. As has been his practice over the past several weeks, McChrystal proxy-leaked details of his demands through the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other sources. The Journal says one of McChrystal’s proposed options calls for 60,000 additional troops, and "several officials" say the "maximum variant" is even larger. How odd it will seem to future historians that the world’s sole superpower seriously considered escalating a war in a country that is not a threat to anyone. The most insane tenet of McChrystal’s proposals is to train up 400,000 Afghan security forces. 400,000 armed and trained Afghans is the last thing we want. Five years from now we’ll have to deploy 60,000 troops to defend Iran from Afghanistan. Won’t that be a kick in the cup? A "senior military official" says McChrystal is concerned that some of Obama’s advisers are telling him the Taliban are not a threat to the United States. That would be tantamount to Obama’s advisers telling him the sun doesn’t rise in the West. The Taliban want us to leave their country, that’s all. They may or may not get back control of Afghanistan if we leave it, but why should we care? Afghans have been controlling their own affairs for thousands of years, and not once have they invaded Poland or France. The Times quotes the senior military official (he insisted on anonymity because he’s a sanctioned leaker) as saying, "The real question is, do you want the Taliban to be in power in Afghanistan? If you don’t, then they have to be addressed through a counterinsurgency campaign." Poppycock. There are ways to address the Taliban other than through the kind of nation-birthing counterinsurgency campaign that McChrystal and his allies – who include Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen – are trying to cram up our nose pores. Our counterinsurgency doctrine is a crock of beans. In the case of Afghanistan, it purports that we can transport a culture from the Middle Age to the 21st century by flooding it with teenagers armed with M-16s, Oakley sunglasses, and inferior body armor. If the Taliban take back power in Afghanistan, so what? Hamid Karzai, the guy in power whom we’re backing now, is a knock-knock joke (Who’s there? Nobody). We’d have been far better off after 9/11 to tell one-eyed, illiterate Taliban leader Mohammed Omar to cough up Osama bin Laden in return for a shiny new Cadillac. At the cost of many millions of Cadillacs later, we’re no further along in Afghanistan than we were from the outset. Obama’s National Security Adviser James Jones says al-Qaeda now has fewer than 100 fighters, and even McChrystal admits they aren’t in Afghanistan. Someone needs to explain why we should escalate a foreign war to counter a threat that insignificant. Pouring more troops into Afghanistan would be a travesty. We need to go back to a global security posture that looks like the one we had before we got into the business of nation-birthing, one in which we strike surgically with naval, air, and special operations forces, and step away. Invading and occupying countries as a national pastime is a grand strategy for fools. Fred Kagan, the darling of the military-industrial-congressional complex, was a key contributor to McChrystal’s Afghanistan analysis. Neocon Kagan is a professional warmonger who never saw a war he didn’t like or couldn’t justify. (Defense contracts for all my friends!) The Pentagon’s blatant media assault on President Obama continues. It began around Sept. 18 when a McClatchy article noted that the military is growing "impatient" with Obama on Afghanistan and cited unnamed "officers at the Pentagon in Kabul" as saying McChrystal will resign if he doesn’t get what he wants. The leak of his analysis to Bob Woodward came on Sept. 21, in a story that warned "More Forces or Mission Failure." McChrystal’s 60 Minutes infomercial on Sept. 27 was a Douglas MacArthur-like act of blatant insubordination. McChrystal followed that with a speech in London to a warfare-centric think-tank in which he repeated his position: if Obama doesn’t give me what I want, it will be his fault when we lose. Among the latest assaults is an Oct. 11 article from right-wing media maven Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London that heralds "Barack Obama ready to pay fighters to ditch the Taliban." Times doesn’t mention that bribing insurgents is precisely how "King David" Petraeus created the illusion of success in the Iraq surge. The article notes that "Despite five war councils in two weeks, President Barack Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict." The Pentagon has had eight years to come up with a strategy for Afghanistan and failed to come up with anything better than its long-war mantra, a policy that says we can’t win, we just want to keep fighting. Now, the lack of a coherent strategy is somehow the fault of Obama, who has been commander in chief for less than a year. Obama made an enormous mistake when he called the Afghanistan conflict a "war of necessity." We need to fight in Afghanistan like fish need running shoes. Afghanistan is a discombobulated society that couldn’t work itself out of a paper bag. Al-Qaeda consists of fewer than 100 fighters, and the Taliban, which our intelligence describes as a "franchise operation," has no interest in or capability of invading the United States. Let’s hope our Nobel winner finds the courage to stand up to the media blitz he’s facing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
why doesn't Huber discuss the real reasons we're there? oil, opium, Israel. WHY AFGHANISTAN? The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama II are Zionist- dominated and controlled governments. Rahm Emanuel, for example, the Chief-of- Staff of the Obama White House, is actually an Israeli citizen and the son of a Zionist terrorist from the Irgun, the most radical terror gang in Palestine during the 1930s and 1940s. The Zionist influence in these administrations can easily be seen by the placement of pro-Israel agents in different positions at every level. Israeli influence within the U.S. military and intelligence spheres is as extensive and deep as it is within the Oval Office. Israeli military intelligence has a great deal of influence in every sphere of the U.S. government which is involved in making the decisions that go into taking the United States to war. That the U.S. government would accept Israeli intelligence on the Middle East from a state that has been at war with nearly every other nation in the region since 1948 is clearly an absurd and biased situation but that is how it is. This is how the United States was taken to war in Afghanistan in October 2001 – and why we are still there. Although no group claimed responsibility for the attacks, Israeli political and military leaders were well prepared to immediately interpret the meaning of 9- 11 and spoke to the mass media with one voice. On the very day of the attacks, for example, Shabtai Shavit, the former head of Israel's Mossad, said: "The attacks symbolize the conflict between extremist Islam versus the Western democracies." The Mossad then provided fabricated evidence to support its claims via its agents in the U.S. government, such as Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, the key official in the cover-up of 9-11. The Israeli politicians Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were the very first people to blame Osama Bin Laden for 9-11 and call for military action against the Taliban-led regime in Afghanistan. They used the terror attacks and the controlled media to begin the Zionist fraud known as the "War on Terror," an Israeli military strategy long promoted by "Bibi" Netanyahu. On 9-11, Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime/defense minister/military intelligence chief, was the first person to call for the U.S. to attack Afghanistan. Barak told Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television in London that Western governments needed to make a concerted effort to combat terrorism: "Most obviously my guess is a bin Laden organization...We have to stand firm against such terrorism," Barak said. "We have to coordinate to launch the same kind of fight that our forefathers gave to the fight against piracy on the high seas - mainly terrorists should not be allowed to land at any port or airport," Barak said. "The leadership of the world should be able to take action. It is time for action. The world is not going to be the same place as before," he said. "Bin Laden sits in Afghanistan," Barak said on 9-11. "We know where the terror sites are. It's time for action." When Barak specifically called for military action against Afghanistan, he was speaking for Israel's military intelligence establishment, an organization he has headed for many years. Barak is Israel's current minister of defense and has been at the top of Israel's military intelligence organization for several decades. He was head of Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate (AMAN 1983- 1985), head of Central Command (1986 - 1987), and Deputy Chief of the General Staff (1987-1991). He was Chief of the General Staff between April 1, 1991 and January 1, 1995. Barak went on to serve as Minister of the Interior (1995) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1995-1996). He was elected to the Knesset in 1996, where he served as a member of the Israeli government's committees on foreign affairs and defense. In 1996, he became the leader of the Labor Party and was elected to be prime minister in May 1999. He served as prime minister until early 2001, when he went into business, primarily in the United States. An article in the Israeli press entitled "Ehud Barak Ltd." discussed some of the people involved with Barak's business dealings and his penchant for secrecy: "None of them really has the whole picture of Barak's business dealings - in business, as in politics, his policy is strict compartmentalization and secrecy." Why would Ehud Barak, the most senior member of Israel's military intelligence establishment, call for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan before any investigation of the terror crimes of 9-11 had even begun? How would Israel benefit from a U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? --snip-- "This Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs the Bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalised... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill."--Charles Lindbergh, Sr.
bttt
TRAITORS TO AMERICA AND BRAINWASHED IDIOTS SUPPORT AND DEFEND ISRAEL. TO HELL WITH ZIONISTS AND THIER AMERICAN FRONTS: AIPAC/PNAC/ADL/JPCA/NAACP/CFR/FEDERAL RESERVE/NWO/SPLC/JINSA/ACLU/FPI/CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS/AEI/FEDERAL MEDIA/HOLLYWOOD, et. al.
"We have to stand firm against such terrorism," Ehud Barak said (on 9/11)." "WE" - in the last eight years just how many Jews have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and soon Iran?
Obama made an enormous mistake when he called the Afghanistan conflict a "war of necessity." We need to fight in Afghanistan like fish need running shoes. Afghanistan is a discombobulated society that couldn’t work itself out of a paper bag. Al-Qaeda consists of fewer than 100 fighters, and the Taliban, which our intelligence describes as a "franchise operation," has no interest in or capability of invading the United States.
#2. To: christine, *Israeli Espionage* (#1)
www.therebel.org/opinion/...ghanistan?_2009100363783/
#3. To: Ada (#0)
#4. To: christine (#1)
On 9-11, Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime/defense minister/military intelligence chief, was the first person to call for the U.S. to attack Afghanistan. Barak told Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television in London that Western governments needed to make a concerted effort to combat terrorism:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest