India–the Fly In the Ointment of New Afghan Paradigm

26 03 2010

India afraid of covert Pak-US understanding

* Former diplomats say US supplied Pakistan N-capable F-16s to fight India

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Indian strategic community believes Pakistan and the US may have come up with a hush-hush understanding on Afghanistan in the ongoing strategic dialogue, aimed at marginalising Indian role in Afghanistan.

Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh asked the Indian government not to be complacent over the US refusal to sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan. He called for focusing on the future of Afghanistan and India’s relationship with the central Asia.

Fighting: Mansingh said the nuclear-capable F-16s and maritime aircraft supplied by the US to Pakistan were not to fight terrorism, but to fight India.

Experts believe that the situation emerging in Afghanistan was a matter of concern for India and any deal with the Taliban would affect its interests. Former deputy national security adviser Satish Chandra said Pakistan had been given a veto over the future of Afghanistan, which was a big setback for India. “Pakistan wants to become the sole spokesperson of the Taliban. Pakistan has eliminated all potential mediators between the Taliban and the US so as to be the sole mediator with the Taliban,” said Alok Bansal, deputy director at the National Maritime Foundation (NMF).

Meanwhile, India’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took exception to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Pakistan’s struggles are my struggles”, asking if America was a party to anti-India terror activities emanating from Islamabad. “Clinton’s statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi amazingly belies an utter disregard for facts and history,” BJP spokesman Tarun Vijay said. He criticised the US for denying India access to David Headley, the American who confessed in a US court of plotting the Mumbai terror attack. “Instead of strengthening a dictatorial power centre supported and bolstered by the Pakistan Army, the US would have done better by asking Pakistan’s leaders to be actively helping India in its war on terror,” he said.





Brave new world or the past revisited?

26 03 2010

Brave new world or the past revisited?

Islamabad diary

Friday, March 26, 2010
Ayaz Amir

If there’s a cross on which Pakistan has found itself frequently crucified, it is the one carrying the legend ‘strategic’. What follies have we not committed in the pursuit of strategic goals? Even our present preoccupation with terrorism is a product of our strategic labours in times past (hopefully, never to return).

So when a fresh batch of graduates out of higher strategy school speak of a ‘strategic dialogue’ with the United States — our principal ally and, often, the cause of our biggest headaches — there is reason to be wary.

We have been here before, travelled down this route many times, our obsessive insecurity driving us time and again into American arms, each time to be left high and dry when the initial enthusiasm, or necessity, had passed. But we never seem to learn and each time begin our quest for the holy grail — of permanence in our American connection — as if there were never any heartbreaks before.

Barely six months ago the US viewed Pakistan through sceptical, even distrustful, eyes. The army had yet to go into South Waziristan and the phrase Quetta Shura was on the lips of every half-baked security analyst across the Atlantic. South Waziristan, the unspoken acceptance of drone strikes and greater cooperation with the CIA in nabbing shadowy Taliban figures in Pakistan changed all this. American faces now light up at the mention of Pakistan, no smile more beaming than on the face of Gen David Petraeus.

As part of this mood swing, the Americans have taken to lionizing Pakistan’s army commander, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, who is very much the flavour of the moment, just as — frightening thought — Pervez Musharraf was once upon a time. It is sobering to remember that when Musharraf signed on with the US post-Sept 11, conceding far more than anyone in the Bush administration was expecting, no leader on earth was more feted than him.

So we should try and keep things in perspective. The Americans may be gushing over us now but that’s only because we are crucial, perhaps indispensable, for the success of their mission in Afghanistan. Or even for a face-saving exit from that quagmire. There are two fronts to this war, the one in Pakistan being by far the most important.

The ‘strategic dialogue’ is thus not pegged to any abstract love for Pakistan. It arises from the grim necessity of the war in Afghanistan. We should be under no illusions about the window of opportunity that this dialogue offers. This window will remain open and serviceable only up to the moment when the Americans begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. To assume otherwise, and give way to misplaced euphoria — something at which we are rather good — is to court the ways of folly and set ourselves up for another ‘betrayal’ at American hands.

The wish-list Pakistan has carried to Washington has Kayani’s thumbprint all over it. It has not been lost on anyone that in the driving seat as far as our delegation is concerned sits not the foreign minister or anyone else but him. It would also not have been lost on anyone that the brief prepared by our side for the talks was put together not in the prime minister’s office or anywhere else but in General Headquarters, with key federal secretaries in attendance and Kayani, not the prime minister, presiding.

Kayani is a smart man, very articulate and extremely good at putting his point of view across (his presentation at Nato Hqs in Brussels has been widely talked about). But what is this we are hearing about the shopping list prepared under his aegis? Which world are we living in? Which planet does GHQ still inhabit?

We have just a year and a half, not eternity, to get what we want from the US. It behoves us ill to ask the US to help restart our composite dialogue with India. If India is playing hard-to-get on this count, we should be able to keep our cool and wait for India’s attitude to change. Even if the composite dialogue doesn’t get going for the next two years, the glaciers will not melt and the Himalayas will not march down to the seas.

We should be mature enough to understand a few things clearly. America is not going to ask India to talk Kashmir with us. It is not going to solve our water problems with India. It is not going to give us the kind of nuclear deal it has concluded with India.

To go by the hype generated in official quarters, it almost appeared as if we were expecting a string of nuclear power plants from the US. And what happens? Hillary Clinton announces a gift of 125 million dollars to set up thermal power plants. A colder splash of water on the fires of our misplaced ardour could not have been poured. What Burke said of England in the context of America’s war of independence: “Light lie the dust on the ashes of English pride” — we can use to define our predicament: light lie the dust on the embers of our strategic relationship.

Sooner or later we will have to discover the reasons for this talent for selling ourselves cheap. We have always behaved thus in our dealings with the US, assuming obligations unthinkingly, never asking for the right price and then moaning about betrayal and the like when the Americans, taking us at our word, leave us with very little.

Mobarak got Egypt’s American debt (7 billion dollars, and this was in 1991) written off when he joined America’s first Gulf war. The Turks asked for 25 billion dollars to allow American troops territorial passage prior to the Iraq war in 2003. That the US refused is beside the point. The Turks did not allow themselves to be taken for granted. We settle for peanuts and call it a ‘strategic relationship’.

Kayani, as I have said, is a smart man. But there is too much of India and Afghanistan in his world-view. More than with the US, we need to be conducting a strategic dialogue with ourselves. Why can’t we rid ourselves of the fixation of managing things in Afghanistan? We can’t manage ourselves, yet we want to fix the neighbourhood. Managing Afghanistan may be a worthy ambition. But it is poor compensation for mismanaging Pakistan.

GHQ is aghast at the thought of the Indians training the Afghan army. In Kayani’s phrase, even when trainers depart, they leave their mindset behind. Given the vehemence of our position on this point, maybe the Americans give us ground on this. And we will hail it as a major victory. But we should be playing for higher stakes instead of tilting at windmills.

We should have been gunning for something tangible. We are a debtor nation, strapped for cash. It is money we should have been asking for. In concrete terms, a writing off of all our debt. A one-point agenda, clearly stated and firmly put, without all the mumbo-jumbo of a ‘strategic relationship’. Water, energy, India and Afghanistan were best left out of our wish list, more an exercise in fantasy than anything to do with the real world.

This government is too scatterbrained and too preoccupied with other problems to have been able to get things right and concentrate on the essentials of this ‘strategic dialogue’ right. The vacuum created by its ineptitude was filled by a GHQ pluming itself on the laurels won in Swat and FATA. But for all its slickness under Kayani, GHQ, alas, remains trapped in the morass of its old conceits and prejudices.

So the old questions remain: how to emerge from the darkness into the light? How to manage Pakistan’s affairs better? Most important of all: whence will come the liberation of the Pakistani mind? One thing is for sure: not from GHQ.

Afterthought: the army had denounced the Kerry-Lugar Bill. What’s so great about the ‘strategic dialogue’?

Email: winlust@yahoo.com





France Seeks ITU Help To Halt Satellite Signal Jamming by Iran

26 03 2010

France Seeks ITU Help To Halt Satellite Signal Jamming by Iran


By Peter B. de Selding

Francois Rancy, director of the French National Frequencies Agenct. Credit: International Telecommunication Union Photo by J.M. Ferre Francois Rancy, director of the French National Frequencies Agenct. Credit: International Telecommunication Union Photo by J.M. FerrePARIS — French regulators have asked the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to intervene with the Iranian government to persuade Tehran to stop jamming satellite signals from the BBC World Service’s Persian-language broadcasts into Iran, according to the director of France’s National Frequencies Agency (ANF).

ANF Director Francois Rancy said the appeal to the ITU was made the first week of January only after numerous French requests to Iran to stop the interference went unanswered over the past seven months.

Rancy, a veteran international-frequency regulator who chaired the ITU’s World Radiocommunication Conference in late 2007, said that while he hoped ITU pressure would affect Iran’s behavior, he was not counting on an immediate stop to the practice.

“The ITU is really a gentlemen’s club,” Rancy said in a Jan. 5 interview. “It depends on the goodwill of its members. There is no mechanism for forcing an administration into compliance with the rules.”

The Geneva-based ITU is a United Nations affiliate that regulates satellite and other wireless communications frequencies and satellite orbital slots. In recent years it has regularly tried, without success, to get the U.S. government to stop jamming legal radio and television broadcasts from Cuba, which the ITU says is done with low-flying aircraft operating in international airspace.

In another example, Slovenian television broadcasters and the ITU have sought to stop Italian broadcasters from overstepping their frequency assignments with signal transmissions that interfere with Slovenian broadcasts. According to ITU documents, Slovenian regulators sent more than 200 reports to Italy citing interference, saying Italy was using frequencies that had not been coordinated with its neighbors.

In both these cases, the alleged offending administrations — the United States and Italy — have all but refused to acknowledge the ITU requests.

The BBC Persian programming carried on the Eutelsat Hot Bird 6 satellite stationed at 13 degrees east was jammed starting last spring during Iran’s elections, and it has continued intermittently ever since, particularly during the broadcaster’s coverage of the death of a reformist Iranian cleric.

An official with Paris-based Eutelsat acknowledged that locating the source of frequency interference is often difficult. But in this case, Eutelsat contacted other satellite operators to compare notes about broadcasts in the region and performed tests over an extended period of time, and concluded that the jamming signals were coming from Iranian territory.

The Eutelsat official said one way of determining whether interference is intentional or accidental is to move the affected programming to another transponder on the satellite to see whether the jamming then stops.

Once it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the interference was coming from Iran, Eutelsat contacted ANF, which then contacted Iran in multiple letters sent since mid-2009, Rancy said.

For the BBC, a solution to the problem is likely to involve using replacement capacity on Eutelsat satellites whose beams make it impossible for Iranian authorities to uplink interference to the satellite. The BBC in recent months has shifted its programming to Eutelsat capacity on the Telstar 12 satellite at 15 degrees west, a location that relieves the jamming but also makes it difficult for the BBC’s Iranian audience to capture the satellite’s downlink.

The British broadcaster has also used Eutelsat’s W2M satellite at 3.1 degrees west, which offers a better signal-reception angle for Iranian dish antennas but features a narrow beam whose uplink cannot be accessed from Iranian soil, the Eutelsat official said.

“There are no easy and definitive solutions,” the Eutelsat official said. “But when we can, we can move programming to a satellite whose location makes it impossible for jammers in a given location to target the satellite.”

BBC World Service did not respond to requests for comment about whether the use of other satellites will provide a permanent solution to the problem or whether the broadcast audience will be sharply reduced as viewers need to repoint their rooftop antennas to the new satellites.

In a Dec. 21 statement following a fresh round of Hot Bird 6 jamming that started Dec. 20, the broadcaster said: “The BBC is looking at ways to increase the options for its Farsi-speaking audiences in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, which may include broadcasting on other satellites.”





India to Get All “Legal” On America Over Denial of Access To Headley

26 03 2010

Photo

India, U.S. clash on access to David Headley

By Bappa Majumdar

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – The government is building a legal case for access to American David Headley who pleaded guilty to helping plan the 2008 Mumbai attacks, official said on Thursday, after confusing U.S. signals on whether Indian police could quiz him.

New Delhi says it could get more information on militant networks targeting India if it was allowed to interrogate Headley, who admitted in a U.S. court last week that he scouted targets for the attacks, which killed 166 people.

But India’s hopes of accessing Headley, 49, have so far met with frustration following contradictory statements from U.S. diplomats, threatening to strain relations with Washington.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said during a visit to New Delhi last week that Indian investigators would get access to the Chicago man. Two days later, U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer said Washington was still to make a call.

U.K. Bansal, a senior internal security official, told Reuters that a meeting was held this week with legal experts to prepare the ground for approaching the U.S. justice department.

“The home (interior) ministry is working on documents seeking quick access to Headley,” an official from the law ministry said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Indian officials also told U.S. counter-terrorism coordinator Daniel Benjamin in New Delhi this week that India had a right to interrogate Headley and try him in an Indian court, government officials said.

India has extradition and legal cooperation treaties with the United States that could come into potential conflict with Headley’s plea agreement, under which he will be spared death sentence and extradition to India, legal experts in India say.

“This is a matter we need to press hard,” Law Minister Veerappa Moily told reporters on Wednesday. “We have to make a strong case, which we have already made.”

Relations between India and the United States, which were on opposing sides of the Cold War, have warmed in recent years and the signing of a landmark 2008 civilian nuclear deal has elevated ties to a strategic level.

But irritants have remained, including a nagging worry in New Delhi that Washington favours Pakistan in its war on terrorism.

Also, a failure to remove Indian domestic policy hurdles that prevent U.S. nuclear firms from accessing India’s estimated $150 billion nuclear power market has frustrated Washington.

Indian officials said they will “soon” formally write to the U.S. justice department seeking access to Headley, who spent his childhood in Pakistan and whose father is Pakistani.

India blamed Pakistan-based militants for the Mumbai attacks which derailed their sluggish four-year-old peace process and worsened the security environment in the already-roiled region.

(Editing by Krittivas Mukherjee and Alex Richardson)





India probes sabotage behind huge arms depot fire

26 03 2010

India probes sabotage behind huge arms depot fire

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – A huge fire destroyed about 200 tonnes of arms and ammunition in one of India’s biggest army depots early on Friday, triggering an investigation into possible sabotage, defence officials said.

The fire broke out at the army’s Panagarh depot in West Bengal and officials said they were surprised how such a blaze could have broken out in a high security zone.

“We are exploring all possible angles,” an army official said. The store has been completely gutted, Mahesh Upasani, a defence spokesman said.

India remains jittery about the threat of militant attacks. A blast in Pune killed 17 people last month, the first major militant strike since the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

(Reporting by Bappa Majumdar; Editing by Krittivas Mukherjee)





Obama bin Laden

26 03 2010

Obama bin Laden

by Nadeem Khan


New World Order plan in jeopardy

The following article truly shows the US long term perspective that how they will slowly and gradually pull out of the mess they have gotten into and pulled others in, as well.

Truly, it would be interesting to see, how Pakistan will form her strategic position and align herself up in the changing ‘world order’, …. again. Pakistan faced consequences, embracing it as her own war, first by joining hands in ‘War against terror’ and experienced worst ever extremism and terrorism in her history.

What could be the repercussions of pulling ourselves out of the long fought and suffered ‘War against terror’ when USA brokers the deal with Taliban and hit the last nail to leave Afghanistan?

Now the nation is not divided on the phrase ‘our war / not our war’ type slogans other than some fanatic religious parties, etc as the whole nation has suffered the loss of lives, property, security, liberty, democracy, development and sustained the most devastating, the international isolation.

Is the US presence very much required in Afghanistan as its presence has fueled our necessities? Much strategic or un-strategic help was/is there for Pakistan to sustain the stronghold of USA in Afghanistan.

In new strategic dialogues, Pakistan should use its leverage now and should seriously follow the maxim of Kerry Lugar Bill when conditions were imposed upon dire need of some aid but now the time is about to take the turn in our favor. USA has got no other choice but to pull out its presence from various war zones OR dramatize another 9/11 type incident to continue the ‘New World order’ plan. (Nadeem Khan)

OBAMA SHRINKS THE WAR ON TERRORISM

(Original article by Peter Beinart, Monday December 07, 2009, TIME).
Beinart is associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation

To understand Barack Obama’s Afghanistan decision, it’s instructive to go back to one history-shifting sentence, uttered by his predecessor more than eight years ago. It was Sept. 20, 2001. USA was in agony, and George W. Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, telling Americans where to direct their rage. “Americans are asking, ‘Who attacked our country?’” Bush declared early in his remarks. “The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al-Qaeda.”

Had Bush stopped there, everything would be different today. But a few minutes later, he made this fateful pivot: “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there.” After that, Bush mentioned terror, terrorists or terrorism 18 times more. But he didn’t mention al-Qaeda again. When he returned to Congress a few months later for his January 2002 State of the Union address, he cited Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, North Korea, Iran and Iraq and employed variations of the word terror 34 times. But he mentioned al-Qaeda only once.

For Obama, this is the original sin whose consequences must now be repaired. His foreign policy in the greater Middle East amounts to an elaborate effort to peel back eight years of onion in hopes of finding the war on terrorism’s lost inner core: the struggle against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda alone. That’s the subtext underlying his new Afghan strategy. He’s raising troop levels, but less to vanquish the Taliban than to gain the leverage to effectively negotiate with them — in hopes of isolating al-Qaeda from its Afghan allies. He’s boosting America’s means but narrowing its ends. The same logic underlies his outreach to Iran and Syria and his rhetoric about groups like Hizballah and Hamas. Obama’s not trying to end the war on terrorism, but he is trying to downsize it — so that it doesn’t overwhelm the U.S.’s capacities and crowd out his other priorities.

Obama’s foreign policy, in fact, looks a lot like Richard Nixon’s in the latter years of Vietnam, which sought to scale down another foreign policy doctrine — containment — that had gotten out of hand. And Nixon’s experience offers both a warning and an example: pulling back from your predecessor’s overblown commitments can be vital. The risk is that it can make you look weak or immoral, or both.

Obama, by contrast, doesn’t need to go hunting for grand challenges. From preventing a depression to providing universal health care to stopping global warming, he has them in spades. Bush could afford to define the war on terrorism broadly because he didn’t think anything going on at home was nearly as important. Obama, on the other hand, must find space (and money) for what he sees as equally grave domestic threats. Bush loved the ominous, elastic noun terrorism. Obama, according to an analysis by Politico, has publicly uttered the words health and economy twice as often as terrorism, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan combined. Even his decision to temporarily send more troops to Afghanistan was framed as a way to allow the U.S. to eventually disengage from the war.

Obama is also shrinking the war on terrorism because, although he won’t say so out loud, he’s scaled back Bush’s assessment of American power. When Bush invaded Iraq, the U.S. was coming off a decade of low-cost military triumphs — from Panama in 1989 to the Gulf War in 1991 to Bosnia in 1995 to Kosovo in 1999. And back then, Afghanistan looked like a triumph too. It was easy to believe that the U.S. military — through a combination of force and threats of force — could prevail over a slew of hostile regimes and movements at the same time. And it was easy to believe that the U.S. could afford these military adventures, particularly for conservatives like Dick Cheney, who famously declared that “deficits don’t matter.” Finally, in the wake of communism’s collapse and the spread of democracy throughout the developing world, hawks tended to see dictatorships as brittle, devoid of popular support. This epic faith in the U.S.’s military, economic and ideological power fueled Bush’s decision to define the war on terrorism as the U.S. against the field. It was like the way Americans once talked about Olympic basketball: we were so much better than all the others that they might as well combine into one opposing team so we could take them all on at the same time.

These days the U.S. doesn’t look quite so omnipotent. Insurgents in Iraq and now Afghanistan have learned how to throw sand in our war-fighting machine. Economically, our gaping deficits are making it harder to run the war on terrorism on a blank check. And ideologically, violent, illiberal movements like Hamas, Hizballah and the Taliban have proved that they have deeper roots in native soil than the Bushies assumed. At West Point, Obama said he would not “set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests.” Bush never spoke in that language of limits.

So Obama is trying to make a virtue of necessity. Since the U.S. can’t defeat all terrorism-supporting movements and regimes, he’s arguing that it doesn’t have to, since most of them are not committing terrorism against us. As Bruce Riedel, who ran Obama’s initial Afghanistan and Pakistan review, puts it, “He’s going after the organization that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and before and since rather than pursuing a vague and murky war on terrorism everywhere.” Team Obama has junked the phrase war on terror, not to mention Islamofascism. And the World War II and Cold War analogies have mostly ceased. Even in Afghanistan, Obama has sharply narrowed the U.S.’s goals. While still aiming to “defeat al-Qaeda,” we’re now trying only to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.” In other words, we’ll tolerate Taliban control over large chunks of the Afghan countryside.

Narrowing the Struggle

Practically, this exercise in subtraction starts with Iran. By defining the U.S.’s enemy as “terror,” Bush implied that Iran was as big a problem as al-Qaeda. After all, Tehran’s mullahs began sponsoring terrorism before al-Qaeda was even born. In so doing, Bush made normal relations with the Islamic Republic virtually impossible. While he didn’t actually declare war on Tehran, he initiated the coldest of cold wars: threats of force, no diplomacy and an ideological campaign aimed at making the regime crack.

In Obama’s narrower struggle against al-Qaeda, however, a cold war with Tehran makes little sense. For all its nastiness, the Iranian regime doesn’t direct its terrorism against the U.S. And Iran’s Shi’ite theocrats have a mostly hostile relationship with the anti-Shi’ite theocrats of al-Qaeda. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has caused trouble for the U.S. largely out of fear that if the U.S. prevails in those countries, Iran will be next. But the Obama Administration seems to believe that if the U.S. can convince Iran’s regime that it’s not next, Washington and Tehran can cooperate to achieve their common goal in Afghanistan and Iraq: smashing al-Qaeda.

The U.S.-Iranian cold war has shown some signs of a thaw, Tehran’s continued defiance of world opinion on its nuclear program notwithstanding. Obama has begun the highest-level diplomatic engagement with Tehran in 30 years and refrained from calling for the overthrow of the regime, even amid mass Iranian protests last summer aimed at accomplishing exactly that. Media coverage of the diplomatic dance between Washington and Tehran focuses on Iran’s nuclear program, but by pursuing a fundamentally different relationship with the Islamic Republic, the Obama Administration is also quietly conceding that Iran’s militancy is different from the terrorism of al-Qaeda, an organization that no U.S. diplomat would ever sit across a table from.

And even as it works to remove Iran from the U.S.’s post-9/11 enemies list, the Obama Administration is trying something similar with another traditional Middle Eastern irritant, Syria. Under George W. Bush, Syria got the cold-war treatment as well: rhetorical belligerence, veiled military threats, a withdrawal of the U.S. ambassador. Under Obama, by contrast, Middle East envoy George Mitchell has been to Damascus, the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister has been to Washington, and the rhetoric has become noticeably less hostile.

The best precedent for all this is what Nixon did in the late Vietnam years. For roughly two decades, the U.S. had been trying to contain “communism” — another ominous, elastic noun that encompassed a multitude of movements and regimes. But Vietnam proved that this was impossible: the U.S. didn’t have the money or might to keep communist movements from taking power anywhere across the globe. So Nixon stopped treating all communists the same way. Just as Obama sees Iran as a potential partner because it shares a loathing of al-Qaeda, Nixon saw Communist China as a potential partner because it loathed the U.S.S.R. Nixon didn’t stop there. Even as he reached out to China, he also pursued détente with the Soviet Union. This double outreach — to both Moscow and Beijing — gave Nixon more leverage over each, since each communist superpower feared that the U.S. would favor the other, leaving it geopolitically isolated. On a smaller scale, that’s what Obama is trying to do with Iran and Syria today. By reaching out to both regimes simultaneously, he’s making each anxious that the U.S. will cut a deal with the other, leaving it out in the cold. It’s too soon to know whether Obama’s game of divide and conquer will work, but by narrowing the post-9/11 struggle, he’s gained the diplomatic flexibility to play the U.S.’s adversaries against each other rather than unifying them against us.

Gaining Leverage

Lurking behind Obama’s different view of Iran and Syria is a different view of the terrorist movements they support: Hizballah and Hamas. For Bush, the only distinction among Hizballah, Hamas and al-Qaeda was that the first two terrorized Israelis, not Americans, and since Israel was the U.S.’s close ally, that was no difference at all. But the Obama Administration has hinted at a different perspective: a recognition that unlike al-Qaeda, Hizballah and Hamas are nationalist movements with deep roots in their particular societies. That means that unlike al-Qaeda, they can’t simply be destroyed. Rather, the goal must be to transform them from military organizations into purely political and social ones, as happened with the Irish Republican Army. The U.S. might still dislike their Islamist, anti-Western, anti-Israeli agenda, but as Obama said in an interview with the Arab-owned news channel al-Arabiya during his first week in office, he would be “very clear in distinguishing between organizations … that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it — and people who … have a [different] viewpoint [from the U.S.'s] in terms of how their countries should develop.” Hizballah and Hamas would have to transform themselves to gain U.S. recognition, but while Bush’s goal was to smash the two movements, Obama’s seems to be to nudge that transformation along.

The most urgent and high-profile item on Obama’s downsizing agenda is, of course, Afghanistan. For eight years, the Bush Administration lumped al-Qaeda and the Taliban together. It was the most obvious application of Bush’s famous declaration that “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” But now the Obama Administration is making exactly that distinction. “There is clearly a difference between” the Taliban and al-Qaeda, press secretary Robert Gibbs said recently. A host of Obama officials have insisted that the Taliban is a tribal and national movement and that while it may want to terrorize Afghan secularists and women, it is not particularly interested in terrorizing the American homeland.

The Taliban’s local roots, Obama officials suggest, also make it harder to vanquish than al-Qaeda. The implication is that as with Hizballah and Hamas, the U.S.’s only realistic goal is to bring the Taliban into the political process. Despite his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Obama has abandoned the goal of making the country Taliban-free. For all the attention it has received, the decision about troop levels is essentially tactical: it’s an effort to win the military leverage necessary to persuade elements of the Taliban that they’re better off in government than on the battlefield. “Ultimately,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates has declared, there must be “reconciliation with the Taliban.”

The Downside of Downsizing

In general, Obama’s bid to shrink the war on terrorism makes sense. Since the U.S. lacks the capacity to eliminate Hizballah, Hamas and the Taliban and since we are probably unable to overthrow the regimes in Syria and Iran, we need to rethink our goals. Many on the American right believe the lesson of the Reagan years is that the U.S. can bludgeon our enemies into submission if only we don’t lose our will. But Ronald Reagan didn’t bludgeon Mikhail Gorbachev into submission; he seduced him with intensive diplomatic engagement and arms-control agreements that thawed the Cold War. It was only after that thaw that Gorby let Eastern Europe go free. Eventually, it will probably take a similar thawing to get regimes like Iran and Syria out of the terrorism business.

Obama’s effort to downsize the war on terrorism can also free up time and resources for the rest of American foreign policy. During the Bush Administration, the post-9/11 agenda often seemed to constitute a good 75% of the U.S.’s international agenda. If Obama could eventually get that down to, say, 50%, it would free him up to devote attention to long-term challenges like climate change and the global economy that Bush gave short shrift.

But downsizing also has its costs. The first is moral. Obama may be right that the U.S. can’t vanquish movements like Hizballah and the Taliban or even an embattled regime like Iran’s. Legitimizing them, however, will be hard for some Americans to swallow. Already, hawks have slammed Obama for negotiating with Iran’s mullahs while the blood of Iranian protesters is still fresh on their hands. And “reconciliation” with the Taliban, while necessary for the U.S.’s eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, might be a horror show for Afghan women. It is worth noting that while many historians applaud Nixon’s retreat from global containment, his decision to cozy up to dictators in Beijing, Moscow and elsewhere elicited revulsion from Americans on both left and right.

The second problem with Obama’s agenda is that although he wants to cut deals with regimes like Iran’s and movements like the Taliban, he’s not in a particularly strong position to do so. Back in 2002 or 2003, when the U.S. looked almost invincible, the Iranians appeared willing to concede a lot simply to forestall a U.S. attack. Now, with the U.S. mired in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are less afraid and thus less willing to deal. Similarly, the Taliban have little incentive to break with al-Qaeda so long as they feel they’re gaining momentum in the Afghan war. It will be hard for Obama to win at the negotiating table what he can’t win on the battlefield. After all, despite Nixon’s intricate diplomacy with Moscow and Beijing, neither communist superpower helped him where he wanted it most — in preventing a U.S. defeat in Vietnam.

Therein lies the irony of Obama’s downsizing effort: he needs to ratchet up conflicts at first — by sending more troops to Afghanistan and perhaps pushing new sanctions against Iran — to gain the diplomatic muscle to cut deals that don’t look like abject American defeats. It’s a risky strategy, since there’s no guarantee that the bigger sticks will work, and if they don’t, pulling back will be even harder. But it’s a gamble Obama may have to take. The harsh truth is that the U.S. is significantly weaker in the Middle East now than it was in 2002. For close to a decade, our adversaries have not only survived our efforts to destroy them; they’ve also realized that conflict with the U.S. has its advantages. Now Obama wants to call off the feud. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. He may want to pare down America’s enemies list. But the other guys have to take us off their enemies list too.





Charlie Daniels On Obamacare/American Dictatorship

26 03 2010

Charlie Daniels

Black Monday

Charlie Daniels
To paraphrase a statement by Franklin Roosevelt, Monday March 22, 2010 will be a day that will live in infamy, the day the Democratic controlled congress sold out the American people, voting in a health care bill that a majority of the American people have said over and over they didn’t want.

We no longer have a representative government; we essentially have a dictatorship that is willing to force their will on us regardless of what we want. This is the most despicable act ever perpetrated on the American public by the most dishonorable congress we’ve ever had.

They don’t even know what’s in the bill they just passed, and when those chickens start coming home to roost, I only hope the public remembers who made it law.
I know that I will.

I have always had unfailing faith in the American ability to persevere; to bounce back and overcome almost anything, but people, this health care bill will change America into something that will resemble a police state.

Now I know that’s a drastic statement, but just wait, before this is over, there will be a single-payer health care system run by the government, Americans will be forced to buy health insurance, businesses will be forced to participate in government programs they can’t afford and you will see more and more industry moved out of the country which means more permanent loss of jobs.

All these measures will be strictly enforced by agencies of the federal government. The I.R.S. is already going to monitor our lives to make sure we have government-approved insurance with the passage of this bill, and that will just be the beginning. 16,000 new I.R.S. agents will be hired to oversee this.

Obama claims this program will actually cut the budget but anybody with a brain in their heads knows that it will not only not cut the budget but will cost trillions of dollars that we just don’t have, adding catastrophic amounts to the national debt.

When has a government program not cost way more than they told us it would?

In other words we will have debt we cannot possibly pay taxes will go through the door, resulting in more jobs lost and more investment capital being moved out of the country.

There will be billions of dollars cut from the Medicare program and many doctors and hospitals will simply stop taking Medicare patients, while at the same time the program will dump some 30 million or so new patients on a system that can’t handle the load now which will certainly lead to rationing of health care which is something else Obama said won’t happen.

You will see health care paying for the abortion of innocent babies. I know, I know, Obama signed an executive order saying this won’t happen under this bill, but you just wait and see.

I believe that a huge amount of doctors will simply stop practicing and that many young people who had planned to go into medicine will simply opt for another profession.

And think about this people, if the Democrats can pass health care, what else are they willing to push down our throats?

The sorry answer is, as long as they are a majority, anything they want to; amnesty for illegal aliens is just around the corner.

America is on it’s way to becoming the largest banana republic on earth.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels





Fighting the Taliban With Cellphones

26 03 2010

“If you control the communications of a population, you can control their thoughts.”

Fighting the Taliban With Cellphones

By INDIRA A.R. LAKSHMANAN

WASHINGTON — One morning last summer, U.S. officials meeting in Afghanistan on the rooftop terrace of Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s Kabul residence had an “aha” moment.

Rear Adm. Greg Smith spread out two maps. One highlighted pockets of insurgent control; the other marked mobile phone towers. Where the Taliban’s presence was strongest, phone coverage was weakest, crippled by Taliban sabotage of the towers, Admiral Smith and the U.S. special envoy to the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, recalled in separate interviews about the July 27 meeting.

“We found that Afghans in the most-troubled, insurgent-held areas lived in information wastelands dominated by militant propaganda,” Mr. Holbrooke said. “We are fighting back with a revamped strategy that puts the people and their ability to communicate at the forefront of our effort.”

The United States is betting about $263 million in 2010 that winning this campaign will help it prevail on the battlefield. The effort aims to turn public opinion against the Taliban and to develop a network that lets Afghans contact government officials and lets the authorities talk to each other, said Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, who runs the Joint Staff’s Pakistan-Afghanistan coordination unit at the Pentagon.

If villagers and security forces cannot communicate, that “allows terrorist safe havens to thrive,” said Vikram Singh, a defense and communications adviser for Mr. Holbrooke in Washington.

Mobile phones also have the potential to fuel economic development by helping Afghans receive wages electronically and use services like banking. The Telecom Development Co. of Afghanistan, which operates under the name Roshan, is trying out a program in Parwan Province that sends commodity prices through text messages, the company’s chief operating officer, Altaf Ladak, said in an interview.

The Kabul company’s investors include Monaco Telecom International, a company 49 percent owned by Cable and Wireless Communications, Britain’s No. 2 fixed-line telephone company, and TeliaSonera, Sweden’s largest phone company.

Admiral Smith, head of public communications strategy for U.S. and international military forces in Afghanistan, has a budget of almost $150 million for 2010. The U.S. State Department has $113 million to spend this year for civilian communications. The money will pay for new towers and for projects like developing community media outlets and supporting educational radio.

Afghanistan, with 29 million people, had as many as 12 million cellular-service subscribers in December, according to the Afghan government. Fifty-two percent of the population has access to a mobile phone at home, 65 percent of users send text messages and more than half listen to FM radio through their phones, according to data in a 2009 survey by the Asia Foundation, which is based in San Francisco. Afghans have formed message groups on road conditions, crop prices and cash-for-work opportunities.

Coverage is growing in most places, but a Taliban push since February 2008 to bomb or shut off power to phone towers has affected more than 200 of the 6,000 towers monitored by the U.S. military, according to Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale of the army, a spokesman in Kabul for NATO-led forces. This has isolated communities in extremist-dominated areas, especially in the south and east, he said.

The Taliban use towers “as a weapons system,” said Maj. Eric Johnson, an army psychological-operations officer working for Admiral Smith in Kabul. “If you control the communications of a population, you can control their thoughts.”

Security is improving since a U.S.-led offensive concentrated in the south began last year, so disabled towers are being powered up. At least 24 in Kandahar and Helmand provinces are working again, according to Ashley Bommer, an aide to Mr. Holbrooke in Washington. The U.S. military plans to construct as many as 50 towers on Afghan and international bases and put another 20 on wheels in remote areas, Major Johnson said.

The Taliban will resist the effort, said a spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid. Foreign troops have been “misusing the cell towers for their intelligence works,” and if they are restored, “we can easily” shut them down at night, Mr. Mujahid said in a telephone interview.

Roshan, the leading cellular-service provider in Afghanistan, has sought community cooperation to protect the structures, Mr. Ladak said. It has also introduced mobile health care in Kabul and Bamian Province, allowing medical workers to transfer X-rays and reports over phones.

Police salaries are being paid by phone in two southern provinces in a pilot project supported by NATO and the U.S. Treasury Department. Absenteeism is down because police officers do not have to go home to give their families money, and pay has risen about 30 percent now that supervisors cannot skim off the top, Mr. Singh said.

Joanna Nathan, author of a 2008 report on Taliban propaganda for the International Crisis Group, which is based in Brussels, cautioned that expanding mobile-phone capacity is not enough to counteract the Taliban. They have dominated the war of words by exaggerating victories and fueling conspiracy theories, she said.

“There will always be enormous upset over civilian casualties, nighttime raids and seemingly arbitrary detentions” by U.S. forces, Ms. Nathan said. Transparent investigations are essential when mistakes are made, and listening to Afghans is as important as “messaging” to them, she added.

Afghan officials are cautiously optimistic about the American efforts.

“It’s not the words, but how credible is your message,” said Said Jawad, the Afghan ambassador to Washington. The United States must not only “respond to propaganda but deliver and make a difference in people’s lives.”

Bloomberg News





Balochistan complexities

26 03 2010

Balochistan complexities

News & Views

Mohammad Jamil

Balochistan is mineral rich and strategically located province, and it needs peace for creating climate conducive to investment and development, which would help improve the living conditions of the people of Balochistan. However, militants are actively involved in worsening the security situation in Balochistan, and insurgency has hampered the growth and development of the province. Owing to public sentiments involved in the missing persons issue, it is being rightly highlighted in both print and electronic media but various militant groups under this garb are hell-bent in advancing their agenda. According to credible reports, telephonic conversation of some obstreperous sardars including Brahamdagh Bugti group and other groups, who are maintaining private jails and torture camps for their defectees and rivals.

It is obvious from half a dozen calls intercepted by intelligence agencies that they are also involved in abduction, kidnapping of local civilians for ransom and also security personnel for acceptance of their illegitimate demands including release of their ‘comrade in arms’. During January and February 2010, Brahamdagh discussed with Mlahar about release of kidnapped security officials. His local commander had kidnapped a person Jamalo and demanded Rs 11 million. There could be some persons arrested by the government departments or intelligence agencies, but a number of missing persons could be in Afghanistan and India on the behest of Brahamdagh Bugti and other groups. According to a news report carried by national English daily, more than 100 Pakistani Baloch dissidents have been sent to India by the Indian consulate located in Kandahar (Afghanistan) for six-month training. “We have credible reports that the Indian consulate in Kandahar dispatched more than 100 Pakistani Baloch dissidents during the second week of December 2009 for six-month training in India,” an intelligence source told the English daily on condition of anonymity.

In fact, rivaling international eyes, including world powers and regional countries are eyeing Balochistan avariciously to push it into their own orbits of influence and domination. According to political and defence analysts, the US, Russia, India and even Iran are either directly or indirectly widening the ethnic and sectarian schisms in Balochistan and FATA. Iran has a large Baloch population on its side of border with Pakistan and the Indian desire of weakening Pakistan by creating independent Balochistan will cost heavily to Iran also because greater Balochistan plan includes Sistan province of Iran. For quite some time, Balochistan is in the throes of ethnic, sectarian and tribal schisms. There have been targeted killings of Punjabi settlers in Balochistan.

Ethnic and Shia-Sunni fracas has shaken the erstwhile ethnic and sectarian harmony, as criminal gangs are stoking ethnic and sectarian divisions. Last year three principals of Balochistan Residential College at Khuzdar, Government Commerce College Quetta and Government Pilot Secondary School Mastung (all Punjabis) were killed. A teacher belonging to Dera Ghazi Khan was also reported to have been killed and many sought transfers to other provinces failing which they had decided to leave Balochistan in any case. Pashtun political parties have vocally opposed the target killings in Quetta and demanded of the Baloch nationalists to openly condemn these killings and disassociate themselves with the elements responsible for such heinous crimes, otherwise they would demand that Pushtun areas be amalgamated with Pakhtunkhwa (NWFP). A senior professor of Balochistan University had reportedly said: “If Punjabi professors and professionals are not protected and are compelled to leave Balochistan, many key institutions in the province will remain shut or at least dysfunctional.”

In July 2009, addressing a public meeting at Ayub Stadium, Balochistan National Party-M chief Sardar Akhtar Mengal said there would be no compromise on the national rights of Baloch people who were determined to defeat the elements who had usurped the coast and resources of the province. The public meeting adopted a resolution urging the United Nations to intervene to stop the killing of Baloch people in military operations, detaining of political activists and plunder of Balochistan’s resources. In another resolution, the BNP vowed to effectively use whatever means it deemed fit to achieve the right to self-determination, including creation of ‘a national state for the Baloch people’. Another resolution rejected the Gwadar project, as it will destroy the traditional economy of native fishermen and displace the Baloch population. It said the oil terminal and oil city would pollute the Gulf of Baloch. One would not understand the psyche of such leaders who do not wish to see development of their province for the simple reason that engineers, technicians and other skilled manpower from other provinces will swarm to make Balochis a minority in their province.

If they had cooperated with the government in establishing educational institutions in 1970s, the new generation would have today assumed important positions and there was no need to have manpower from other provinces. It is worth mentioning that hundreds of thousands of Baloch are settled in Sindh and Punjab, and in some districts they have made the local people a minority but no one in Sindh and Punjab has ever protested against it. It is true that Balochistan was neglected during British Raj and no serious effort was made for five decades to bring Balochistan at par with other provinces. But previous provincial governments including sardars were responsible in equal measure for the present dismal situation in Balochistan, as they always opted for the confrontation. Sardar Ataullah Mengal rarely appeared in television interviews. We remember his reply to a question when he said that “America does not pay any attention adding that he would welcome if any country would help us to get freedom”. Sardar Akhtar Mengal, Zain Bugti and Marri sardars also openly talk about disintegration of Pakistan, and that Balochistan was never a willing federating unit.

The present government has taken steps to address the concerns of Balochistan leadership. Through National Finance Award, efforts have been made to allocate additional funds for the development of the province because it was neglected in the past. Sindh and Punjab provinces willingly accepted cut in their allocations to compensate Balochistan for the past neglect. Government also announced Balochistan Package to expedite development of Balochistan. But centrifugal forces rejected Balochistan Package even without reading it, which in fact would guarantee development of the province. As regards missing persons, there should be high-powered judicial enquiry, which should not only locate missing persons held on various charges but also try to trace them from Ferrari Camps/Detention Centres being run by Baloch Sardars and insurgents. PML-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif had more than once promised Shahzain Bugti and Talal Bugti that he would accompany them in a long march to Dera Bugti. He should stop issuing such statements because insurgents feel emboldened by such gestures. The Baloch sardars should negotiate with the government and save Balochistan from bloodshed.





Holbrooke strikes again

26 03 2010

Holbrooke strikes again

Sep 13, 2009

Holbrooke meets Kosovo Albanian terrorists and does not wear shoes during the meeting, an islamic symbol that says he supports their cause.

Holbrooke meets Kosovo Albanian terrorists and does not wear shoes during the meeting, an islamic symbol that says he supports their cause.

By Vojin Joksimovich | Holbrooke supported Balkan Muslim sepratists in Bosnia and Kosovo and delivered victory to al-Qaeda in Europe. Then from Bosnia they turned on the US on 9/11. Holbrooke now heads Afghan policy for Obama.

Obama’s War

Eight-year old Bush’s Afghanistan war has become Obama’s war. Obama has declared that war was both necessary and winnable. He committed 21,000 additional troops this year, bringing the U.S. force to 68,000 and more are likely to be sent. The current expenditures amount to $2.6 billion a month. Percentage of Americans who believe that it was a mistake to send troops rose from 25% in 2007 to 42% this year. There were 51 military deaths in August and at least 732 overall compared to over 4,300 in Iraq. In addition, there are 38,000 NATO troops. Obama has been pushing NATO countries to send more troops and trying to stave off departures of Canadian, Dutch, German, British and other troops. Overall the war is going badly. The military is overhauling its operations including adding combat troops and talking about to avoiding civilian casualties, which most certainly have helped Taliban in recruitments. Despite orders to avert civilian deaths, most of the 70 killed the other day in a NATO airstrike were Afghan villagers. The State Department is similarly attempting to stem government corruption, improve security forces especially the police and reduce violence. However, there is yet another initiative-turning to Islamism or radical Islam, a traditional U.S. foreign policy ingredient and a Richard Holbrooke’s specialty.

Turning to Jihadists

President Obama’s special envoy to AfPac (Afghanistan-Pakistan), some call him the Afghanistan Czar, and former President Clinton’s Balkans fixer, Richard Holbrooke, a fixture of the Democrats’ foreign policy establishment, met recently with Liaqat Baloch, a leader of Pakistan’s Jamaat-i-Islami party or abbreviated to JI. Shortly thereafter, Baloch attended an anti-American rally across the town in Islamabad. Anti-American views of the Pakistani Islamist parties are notorious. Prior to meeting Baloch, Holbrooke met with Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party. Rehman was instrumental in Taliban’s early days and denied that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Dealing with the Islamists is a dangerous foreign policy game, which however the U.S. has played since the 1945 Quincy Pact, between President Roosevelt and Ibn Saud, which made left both countries as the godfathers of Islamism. Dependence on Pakistan, its Islamists and Saudi Arabia, in order to defeat the Soviet Union in Central Asia, has had a troubled history for the U.S. foreign policies not only in the region but led to upheavals worldwide including creation of Al Qaeda and Taliban. A snapshot examination of this history which led to 9/11 plus Holbrooke’s track record in the Balkans implementing foreign policies of the Clintonites, now dominating the Obama administration, seems to be appropriate in particular since the compliant media is unlikely to do their job.

JI

JI ranks among the leading and most influential Islamist movements and the first of its kind to develop an ideology based on the revolutionary concept of Islam in the contemporary world. The party was founded by Moulana Abu Ala Maududi in Lahore on August 26, 1941, inspired by the Pakistani Muslim Brotherhood branch. Maududi advocated a Leninist revolutionary approach to Islamist politics in his book Jihad in Islam. With founding of Pakistan in 1947, JI was reorganized into: JI Pakistan and JI Hind. In mid-70s, JI Bangladesh was established. JI has also presence in the Indian held Kashmir. All JI organizations work for similar objectives and have identical ideological approach with no organizational link between them. JI has developed and maintained close brotherly relations with Islamist parties in the Arab world, northern Africa, Turkey, Tajikistan, Indonesia, Lebanon and Hammas in Palestine. JI is a natural ally of Saudi Wahhabists. General Muhammad Zia ul-Haqq was supported by JI.

General Zia played U.S. as Violin

In 1977 General Muhammad Zia ul-Haqq, after overthrowing and hanging Benazir Bhutto’s father, became a dictator and announced that he wanted to establish a “genuine Islamic order” in Pakistan. He imposed harsh Islamic rules and declared that “in Islam there is no provision for Western-type elections.” He played the U.S. as the violin and managed to convince the U.S. to de facto outsource its policy in Central Asia to Pakistan.

Zia’s goal was to use the U.S. power to carve out a new Mogul empire extending from Pakistan to the Soviet republics of Central Asia. Original Mogul Empire (1526-1857) covered most of the Indian subcontinent and parts of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was at the center of that policy, with Pakistan determined to install a compliant government in Kabul. It was Zia who encouraged Islamists in Afghanistan, both domestic such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf as well as imported Arabs like Osama bin Laden, to fight the Soviets while convincing Washington that the mujahideen were the best bet to defeat the Soviets in the 1980-89 U.S. Afghan proxy war against the USSR, which invaded Afghanistan to gain control over the threat of Islamism in it’s Asian republics (the “Stans”0). 70% of the U.S./Saudi multi billion dollar funding went to ultra-Islamist anti-American Afghan parties. He supported the madrassas along the Afghan-Pakistan border to serve as recruiting grounds. Saudi/Pakistani complex produced Al Qaeda, Afghan Arabs and Taliban. The Taliban took over. In the name of the War on Terror, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. The Islamists were pushed into Pakistan, destabilizing this nuclear weapons country.

Zia authorized a Pakistani program to develop the nuclear weapons capability. The program was overlooked by Washington in order to further jihad in Afghanistan. Zia’s policies amounted to: screw India, deceive the U.S., spread Islamism, develop Islamic bomb and spread nuclear weapons technology. Pakistan has now an arsenal of Islamic bombs in the range 60-100, which presents a headache to all of those concerned about nuclear proliferation. Existence of this nuclear arsenal presents much greater threat to the world than the threat Iran might pose if they ever succeed in developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Bosnian Jihad

Rise to power of Bosnian Islamist Alija Izetbegovic and his Party of Democratic Action (SDA) in Bosnia in 1990 provided a unique opportunity for the Iran-led Islamist coalition to move into the heart of Europe. Iran’s clerics had attempted since the 1979 Khomeini revolution to find a foothold outside the Middle East and Central Asia in order to win territories, infrastructure and structures of government as a base for terrorist and political operations in order to gain leverage against the West. The ultimate target was the Great Satan. Only 15 days lapsed upon 1992 conclusion of the war in Afghanistan when the civil war in Bosnia broke out between the Bosnian Islamists and the Bosnian Christian Serbs.  Compatible with the Prophet’s saying “Indeed Jihad will continue till the day of Judgment,” bin Laden’s Afghan Arabs became available and subsequently moved into a number of world hotspots. The Bosnian jihad became the overseas conflict with the greatest importance to Al Qaeda. It was considered a favored laboratory and a springboard for strategic-level operations against Maghreb countries, Algeria in particular, Western Europe and the U.S. The Bosnian jihad appears to be the first time Shiite and Sunni jihadists cooperated closely together in what could be termed the Joint Islamist Terrorist Enterprise.

Holbrooke In The Balkans

Holbrooke secretly visited Bosnian towns of Travnik and Vitez in December 1992 and in a memorandum informed the U.S. Government about the illegal transportation of arms to the Bosnian Muslims and about volunteers and mercenaries arriving from Islamic countries.
Holbrooke wrote: “There is now clear evidence that few ‘freedom fighters’ or mujahideen, and there are more and more of them, join the Bosnian forces.” Later on, Holbrooke was lionized with brokering the Dayton Peace Accords, which terminated the 42 months civil/religious war caused predominantly by the U.S. via encouragement of Izetbegovic to pull out from the Lisbon agreement brokered by the EU (EC then) and signed by all three parties to the conflict– the Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Once the war was in progress, the Clinton administration sabotaged four peace agreements, endorsed by Serbian President Milosevic, thus unnecessarily prolonging the war and sufferings. Nonetheless, incessant western propaganda blamed Milosevic for all Balkan ills. Holbrooke, aided by compliant media, became the champion of  Serbophobia and demonization of the Serbs, in order to appease the radical Islam including bombing of Bosnian Serbs allegedly to get them to the negotiation table although their behinds were hurting from sitting at numerous negotiations. This partnership with radical Islam included Al Qaeda. During the insurrection of the Albanian terrorists from Albania into Kosovo, Holbrooke visited with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) terrorists but called them the ‘freedom fighters.”  This led to the U.S. embracing the Albanian Muslim narco-terrorists in order to insert NATO troops into Kosovo and thus amputate Serbia from the cradle of their Serbian Christian heritage. 

Clinton Administration Provided Invaluable Service to Al Qaeda in Bosnia

President Clinton sided with the Bosnian and Iran-led Islamists against the Christian Serbs in the civil/religious war in Bosnia. The Clinton administration not only turned a blind eye to radical Islam but also actively supported the Islamists, including the Al Qaeda terrorists. This commitment to actively support an Islamist agenda in the Balkans offers a plausible explanation why bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not show up on the radar screen in Washington until late 1995. By then, Al Qaeda fully established its base for operations in Europe against Al Qaeda’s true enemy, the U.S. Bosnia, serving as the recruiting sergeant, provided a big surge in growth of several terrorist groups on Clinton’s watch.

In the conduct of this deeply flawed policy the Clinton administration opted for an Iran-Contra style operation in flagrant violation of the UN Security Council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia. Despite Iran’s responsibility for the deaths of over 1500 Americans (according to the State Department) and being the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism, the Clinton administration chose Iran to be a partner in Bosnia. By virtue of making Iran-led Islamists and Al Qaeda allies of convenience in the Balkans, the Clinton administration had provided an invaluable service to terrorism. Iran and Al Qaeda established a beachhead in the center of Europe. Al Qaeda formed a terrorist brigade called Al Mujahid, whose members played the pivotal part in 9/11, the Madrid train bombings and other terrorist acts.

Brendan O’Neill wrote that the Bosnian war “taught Islamic terrorists to operate abroad. For all the millions of words written about Al Qaeda since the 9/11 attacks two years ago, one phenomenon is consistently overlooked—the role of the Bosnian war in transforming the mujahideen of the 1980s into the roving Islamist terrorists of today.” This was tragic for almost 3,000 victims of 9/11. O’Neill further wrote that the Bosnia venture led to the emergence of today’s cross-border Islamist terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in search of outlets for their jihadists missions. The Pentagon transported thousands of mujahideen from “the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favored side in the clash of the Balkans. If the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan created mujahideen, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalized it. According to Tomazi, an Italian author, some 20,000 mujahideen had been transported by American planes.

Dismemberments of Yugoslavia and Serbia

It has become apparent that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had broader objectives than fighting terrorism against Al Qaeda and Taliban. So called “war on terror” was an excuse for the Pax Americana in the Middle East and Central Asia. In this context, dismemberment of Yugoslavia into a series of “banana” republics could be interpreted as a creation of Western vassals in the Balkans through wars, but with the blame falling, not on the NATO as the naked aggressor, but on Serbs and Milosevic, former communist, who opposed dismemberment of Yugoslavia and then Serbia. It is now seen by many that NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was an important precursor for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Similar to what had happened during WWII, the Great Powers, this time U.S.-led NATO, exploited and aggravated the Serb-Albanian ethnic conflict for their own purposes to strengthen their position in the Balkans at the expense of Serb Orthodox Christians. NATO, supported by the compliant media, sided with the interests of pan-Islamists, bin Laden and his Al Qaeda included, in echoing and even amplifying the chauvinist Albanian propaganda.

Serbs, characterized as junior Russians sharing the Orthodox religion and the Slavic background, have traditionally enjoyed the reputation of being rebellious people unwilling to accept foreign occupations and dictates, had to be demolished as the historical entity. Strobe Talbott, former U.S. deputy secretary of state, has written: “It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader terms of political and economic reform—not the plight of Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO’s war.”

Holbrooke Played Key Role in Amputation of Kosovo from Serbia

The Clinton administration was determined to deliver the Serbian provinces of Kosovo and Metohija to Albanian Muslim narco-terrorists and thus to supplant a radical Muslim culture over an ancient Christian one. Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke were assigned to implement this “noble” objective. As a first step, on June 24, 1998, Holbrooke met with a KLA commander Gani Shehu in Junik, near the Yugoslav-Albanian border, which served as a supply line for the KLA insurrection from Northern Albania into Kosovo. It didn’t matter that in February of the same year the KLA was characterized as a terrorist organization by then Clinton’s Balkans envoy Robert Gelbard. Despite this, Holbrooke recommended that the KLA, better name should be the “National Front for a Greater Albania,” participate in negotiations which indeed took place at Rambouillet, near Paris, in February 1999 amounting to legitimization of violence.

In August 1998 the Serbian forces defeated the KLA and pushed them back into Northern Albania. Milosevic offered Albanian separatists an interim agreement for a 3-5 year period that would grant the province self-government using South Tirol as a model. This, however, wasn’t good enough for the Clinton administration in their zeal to advance radical Islam in the Balkans. On September 23, 1998 the UN Security Council passed a resolution #1199 threatening Yugoslavia a military action. Holbrooke arrived in Belgrade on October 5 for a 50 hour negotiating session with Milosevic hoping to convince Milosevic to allow NATO presence in Kosovo. The Western diplomacy had one apparent goal: to force, one way or the other, troops into Kosovo in order to establish a NATO protectorate. After 50 hours of face-to-face negotiations, involving many whiskey drinking sessions, Holbrooke and Milosevic reached a cease-fire deal in compliance with the UN Resolution #1199 to be verified by an international team of 2,000 OSCE “compliance verifiers.” The KLA never honored the deal but that didn’t matter as the U.S./NATO interest was to force NATO troops into Kosovo as a part of Pax Americana. In order to accomplish this objective the KLA terrorist actions were right on the mark. The subsequent Rambouillet conference was nothing more than a setup for the war.

Shortly before March 24, 1999, when 78-day bombing of Serbia began, which I call 78 days of infamy, Holbrooke delivered the final ultimatum to Milosevic: if Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro then) doesn’t agree with the Rambouillet conference text, calling for a de facto occupation of Yugoslavia, NATO would strike. Subsequent to initiation of bombing Holbrooke claimed that it wasn’t the occupation which was threatened. Several weeks later, confronted by a journalist, Holbrooke said: “I never said that.” This was a lie and a tacit admission that the Rambouillet text called for occupation of Yugoslavia. Holbrooke is a liar. He promised to Dr. Karadzic, a former Bosnian Serb president, that he wouldn’t face indictment from the $2 billion International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) if he agreed to step down from presidency of the Bosnian Serb Republic. Karadzic indeed stepped down and recently told the Hague Tribunal judges about the Holbrooke’s promise. Holbrooke denied despite the fact that several eye-witnesses have confirmed that the promise was delivered in their presence.

A detailed account of what transpired in Kosovo during the UN/NATO protectorate phase (June 1999-todate) is offered in my book Kosovo is Serbia: The Amputation of a Sovereign Country by U.S,-Sponsored Muslim Terrorists. Essentially it boiled to mayhem for the Serbs, Roma and other minorities including massive ethnic cleansing of some 250,000 Serbs and mostly Roma. 151 Serbian churches and monasteries have been demolished but over 400 Wahhabi style mosques have been built or are under construction. One of them was initially named after Osama bin Laden, but subsequently renamed Medina. Upon arrival of NATO forces, a silent genocide took place in Kosovo. In March 2004, Kosovo Kristallnacht took place; a 60,000 strong Albanian mob drove 4,500 Serbs from their homes causing 19 deaths and some 900 injuries. The human rights organizations slammed UN/NATO but there were apologists for the Albanian thugs including Holbrooke, who wasn’t in the government then since the republican administration was in. On the sidelines Holbrooke continued to support the Albanian separatists and terrorists and continued to be a major force for the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in violation of all international laws on the books.

Kosovo Experiment: A Grand Failure

An Austrian historian, journalist and publicist, Hannes Hofbauer, published a book Kosovo Experiment: Return to Colonialism. He characterized the Kosovo UDI as the fatal blow to the post WWII world order and a return to colonialism. The beneficiaries are NATO, EU and others, who have practiced imperialism in the Balkans, but not the Albanians. The goal of imperial powers is to establish non-Slavic centers in the Slavic lands, to exert control over natural resources, and at the same to experiment with countries at the EU margins in addition to pleasing the radical Islam. Kosovo is an experiment intended to redefine the international law using economic and military might. The unemployment rate in Kosovo as well as in Bosnia runs at ~50%. Kosovo ranks at one of the world’s most corrupt places with 67% of the population reporting that they have to pay a bribe to get a service. In addition it is called by some the Black Hole of Europe and by others the Republic of Heroin.

Despite all of this, the Clintonites in the Obama administration, delusional and disingenuous, continue to maintain that Kosovo has been a great success instead of an ugly experiment and a fiasco. The U.S. has become an international law pariah. It has created a model Russia used to declare Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence: KosovOssetia. Needless to say, while Holbrooke was passed over for the Secretary of State position in the Obama administration he continued to advocate together with Hillary Clinton that there is unfinished business in the Balkans. The primary target would be abolition of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and even greater pressure on Serbia to recognize the illegitimate Kosovo Republic. This despite the Obama administration’s effort to restore America’s reputation and leadership in the world.

Media Silence and Complicity Regarding Kosovo “Success”

Lee Jay Walker wrote recently the following in The Seoul Times: “The ongoing de-Christianization of Kosovo continues and unlike the past frenzy of the anti-Serbian mass media in the West, we mainly have a deadly silence about the reality of Kosovo and continuing Albanization of this land. However, how is it ‘just’ and ‘moral’ to persecute minorities and to alienate them from mainstream society, and then to illegally recognize the land without the consensus of the international community? How ironic it  is that the sane Unites States of America and the United Kingdom, two nations who were in the forefront of covertly manipulating the mass media; remain mainly silent about the destruction of Orthodox Christian churches, Serbian architecture, and of course the past killings of Serbians and other minorities in Kosovo.” The U.S./NATO had portrayed the Serb-Albanian conflict about human rights, democracy and liberty. However, these “noble” goals applied to Muslims but not to the Christians. It should be noted that de-Christianization took place in Iraq as well, which was also all but ignored by the media.

It appears that in order to get informed the American public needs to read The Seoul Times and other similar sources of information based on facts rather than the propaganda. Not only that the American mainstream media has not been reporting ugly events in now decade old UN/NATO protectorate of Kosovo but they are hiding identity of Albanian and Bosnian Muslims criminals for the crimes committed in the U.S. As an example, there is the case of “Fort Dix Six,” sentenced for plotting to blow up U.S. Army base in New Jersey in order “to kill as many soldiers as possible.” Four of them are Albanians, but the media reported that they were Yugoslavs. Second example, Bosnian Muslim Sulejman Talovic went on a shooting spree at a Utah shopping mall, killing five and wounding four. He was identified as a “Bosnian.” On the other hand media has never failed to report that Dr. Karadzic or General Mladic are Bosnian Serbs. Third, one of seven recently arrested terrorists, charged with plotting to wage jihad, is a Bosnian Muslim (Anes Subasic) and another is Kosovo Albanian (Hysen Sherifi). The media reported that they were naturalized American citizens.

A Conclusion

Obama has committed the country to yet another unwinnable war despite the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression including the mushrooming deficit. The Brits and the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, so why would the U.S. do any better? Can Obama convince the nation that additional hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent and additional hundreds of young American lives sacrificed? As was the case with Lyndon Johnston in Vietnam and George Bush in Iraq, the Afghan war will likely hold his administration hostage.

To make already bad things worse, Obama has surrounded himself with Clintonites with their foreign policy disasters claimed to be successes. One of the worst is the partnership with radical Islam in the Balkans used by Islamists as a staging ground for jihad against the rest of Europe as well as the U.S. including 9/11.

Vojin Joksimovich, Ph.D is a nuclear physicist and an author of a new book called Kosovo is Serbia.





Ukraine’s “No” to NATO: An Example for Serbia

25 03 2010

Ukraine’s “No” to NATO: An Example for Serbia

Mar 20, 2010

By Srdja Trifkovic

Ukraine’s decision to pass a law that will prevent the country from joining NATO should be a model for Serbia to follow. The government in Belgrade is still intent on seeking NATO membership, and it is still encouraged to do so by various ill-informed and not necessarily well-meaning Americans, such as Senator George Voinovich. His advice should be rejected: it is contrary to Serbia’s interests, and detrimental to peace and stability in the Balkans.

Bill Clinton’s air war against the Serbs eleven years ago marked a decisive shift in NATO’s mutation from a defensive alliance into a supranational security force based on the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.” The defensive alliance of 1949 thus had morphed into a blatant aggressor in 1999. The bombing had a profound effect on the Russian perception of NATO. In the eyes of the Russians, it was aimed to prove that NATO is the decisive force in the post-Cold War Europe, and to reassert the leading positionof the United States in that organization. Better than any other post-Soviet event, the Kosovo war exposed the position of Russia in the new world order. Earlier warnings by Moscow’s NATO-skeptics were suddenly validated: the US was attempting to encircle Russia, after all. This conclusion has not changed over the years. The National Security Strategy approved by President Medvedev in May 2008 and reiterated last winter identified NATO as a threat to Russian national security.

The Traps of Membership – If Serbia were to join NATO, it would inevitably face two major challenges: sharp internal divisions that would further undermine the country’s stability, and Russian counter-measures.  It is worth pondering what would Serbia do, once in NATO, if the US asked it to play host to elements of an anti-ballistic missile system, like those introduced to Romania? Far from treating Serbia as a friendly nation, Russia would be perfectly within her rights to respond by targeting Serbia with nuclear missiles. Clearly, in that case there would be a threat, but it would be a threat of Washington’s own manufacture. Moscow views plans to deploy an ABM system in Eastern Europe as major threats to Russia’s core security interests: if these plans were to come to pass, Russia’s deterrent capability—the key to its security—would be drastically undermined. European Russia would be surrounded by hostile forces.

NATO and the uses to which Washington puts it constitute a messy tangle of contradictions.  Outwardly, it appears to be what it always was: a defensive organization dedicated to collective security. Inwardly it is something else entirely. NATO’s mission was to contain the USSR—universally perceived as a threat—through collective security: an attack against one would be an attack against all.  Although NATO had a war fighting doctrine, it sought mainly to deter attack.  In this it succeeded splendidly; but with Marxism-Leninism relegated to the ash heap of history, NATO morphed from a defensive alliance to fend off a commonly acknowledged threat into a vehicle for the attainment of the United States’ global ambitions.

By virtue of its location, Russia controls the crossroads of Eurasia and therefore access to its huge natural resource wealth.  As Washington craves cheap and easy access to that wealth, Russia is its target – and the U.S. has an ideology to complement its geo-strategic ambitions. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice described it succinctly: in U.S. foreign policy there is no distinction between ideals and self-interest, she asserted, they are one in the same. U.S. foreign policy is its values, and the US will stop at nothing to assure that its values prevail. The world is divided into two camps: one is made up of states that share U.S. values; the other of states such as Russia and China, who are consigned to a lesser status because their relations with the US are “rooted more in common interests than in common values.”  Some of Dr. Rice’s statements reflected a mindset reminiscent of the early Bolshevik leaders’ revolutionary dynamism: “It is America’s job to change the world, and in its own image… The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States because we do not accept that our national interests and our values are at odds… We prefer preponderances of power that favor our values, over balances of power that do not.  We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change to world.”

Whether viewing U.S. foreign policy through the prism of geo-strategy or ideology, Russia remains in NATO’s crosshairs. It has become an important means of changing the world in America’s image. If Serbia were to join, Belgrade would be enlisting in a crusade to encircle Moscow for the benefit of those who bombed Belgrade for 78 days eleven years ago. Such policy would be not only geopolitically self-defeating, but also morally criminal.

At a time of extreme political, economic, military and moral weakness Serbia needs to pursue its key national interest—that of maintaining friendly relations with Russia. This cannot and will not happen if Serbia resorts to provocative acts such as joining a NATO bent on Russia’s encirclement.  In defining its security arrangement Belgrade should adopt certain criteria based on the conventional understanding of Serbia’s national interest. They should include:

- Attention to cost. The cost of force modernization required to meet NATO standards would overburden and overwhelm the already weak Serbian economy;

- Refusal to commit Serbian forces and use them as American cannon-fodder in missions (e.g. in Afghanistan) not directly connected to the country’s national interests;

- Resistance to being pulled into geo-strategic alignments that are not in the national interest, that are overwhelmingly rejected by Serbia’s popular opinion, and would only exacerbate regional tensions.

Serbia should seek its place within a European security architecture that embraces (and balances) the diverse security arrangements maintained by European states. They include NATO members, from Portugal to Estonia and Iceland to Greece; West European states that are not in NATO, such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland; ex-Communist countries with scant interest in or prospect of joining NATO (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia); and Russia, which occupies a category of its own.

The reality is even more complex when the European Union is taken into account.  Some states belong to both NATO and the EU—France, Germany, Britain, Poland and a host of others; some belong to the EU but not NATO—Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Sweden; some belong to NATO but not the EU—Norway, Turkey, Croatia and Albania. In rejecting NATO and working to establish a new security strategy Serbia  would be establishing a security system that addresses not only its own needs, but those of all of Europe. Serbia is ideally placed to overcome the artificial division of Europe into “civilizational blocs” and serve as a bridge between the key parts of pan-Europe. There is more of a future for Serbia in this role than in becoming an apple of discord, an irritant in relations between East and West, and a satellite of a remote, unreliable, and often hostile foreign power.

Tags: Srdja Trifkovic





Ukraine to pass law scrapping NATO ambitions

25 03 2010

Ukraine to pass law scrapping NATO ambitions

BY SIMON SHUSTER AND ANNA MELNICHUK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s new governing coalition in parliament said Tuesday it will pass a law against joining military alliances such as NATO, a move that is sure to please Russia while tilting Ukraine away from its previous pro-Western course.

In a statement of purpose published Tuesday in the parliament’s official newspaper, the coalition supporting President Viktor Yanukovych said new legislation will "enshrine Ukraine’s nonaligned status in law."

Such a move would kill one of the key initiatives of Yanukovych’s predecessor, the staunchly pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko, who had struggled to gain admission to NATO since he was vaulted to power by the Orange Revolution protests of 2004.

Although Yushchenko’s NATO ambitions never gained broad public support, they managed to infuriate Russia – which recently published a military doctrine naming the alliance’s possible eastward expansion as the country’s top external threat.

Moscow’s effort in recent years to restore its own influence over Ukraine and other former Soviet states got a powerful boost with the election of Yanukovych, who has pledged to cooperate with Russia on key energy and military issues.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s opposition had a bristling reaction to the governing coalition’s statement. It signed its own formal agreement to work together against Yanukovych and his supporters in parliament.

"Today we are forming a union of opposition parties," said opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, who lost to Yanukovych in the hard-fought presidential race last month.

"It will allow us to coordinate our efforts, giving us the ability to protect Ukraine and its democratic path," Tymoshenko said at a signing ceremony with seven other senior lawmakers who oppose Yanukovych.

The new governing coalition behind Yanukovych was formed last week in parliament, and quickly moved to appoint a prime minister loyal to him, Mykola Azarov.

The statement of purpose from the coalition made no mention of the European Union, which Ukraine had also sought to join under Yushchenko’s presidency, but also without success.

"Essentially, it is additional evidence of the intention to change the strategic course of Ukraine," said Hryhoriy Nemyria, the deputy head of Tymoshenko’s fraction in parliament. "It is incompatible with the aims to modernize Ukraine’s economy and society," he said in a statement Tuesday.

Analysts also criticized the new statement of purpose, saying it would play too much into the Kremlin’s hands.

"This is what Russia has been waiting for," said Vadim Karasyov, head of the Global Strategies Institute, a think tank in Kiev. "But this is a dead end. A country in Ukraine’s position cannot remain unaligned."

As part of its effort to assert influence over the post-Soviet sphere, Russia has been promoting the Cooperation and Security Treaty Organization, or CSTO, which is seen as its answer to NATO.

Analysts have said Yanukovych could be pressured to join the Russia-dominated bloc, but the statement published Tuesday appears to apply to all military alliances, including the CSTO.





EU Commissioner: Nabucco Gas Pipeline Delayed till 2018

25 03 2010

EU Commissioner: Nabucco Gas Pipeline Delayed till 2018

Bulgaria: EU Commissioner: Nabucco Gas Pipeline Delayed till 2018
EU Energy Commissioner Oettinger says the Nabucco pipeline will be delayed by 4 years; the Nabucco Consortium has not confirmed this information. Photo by EPA/BGNES

The EU-sponsored gas transit pipeline Nabucco will come into operation in 2018 at the earliest, EU Commissioner for Energy Guenther Oettinger.

In an interview for the German paper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Oettinger says that he is optimistic about the Nabucco project despite the four-year delay (Nabucco was supposed to be completed in 2014). What is more, he calls the gas pipeline “a prestigious EU project.”

The EU Energy Commissioner says he hopes that Nabucco will receive a final construction permit by the end of 2010. He reminds that the EU will invest EUR 200 M in the pipeline, and also announces that a conference with the participation of all Nabucco partners will be held in July 2010 in Brussels or in Instanbul.

The currently existing plans of the Nabucco Consortium state that the pipeline which is to bring Central Asian and Middle Eastern natural gas to Europe via Turkey and Bulgaria should be in operation by 2014. This information has been confirmed on Wednesday by a spokesperson of RWE, the German participant in the project, as cited by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

The other partners in the project include the Turkish company Botas, the Bulgarian Energy Holding, the Romanian Transgas, the Hungarian MOL, and the Austrian OMV. Each of them holds a stake of 16,7%. The construction of the pipe is expected to cost EUR 7,9 B.

In his interview for the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the EU Energy Commissioner Oettinger says that the North Stream gas pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea should be ready in two years.

He also stated the other Russian-sponsored pipeline, South Steam, which goes through the Black Sea and Bulgaria in order to reach the rest of Europe, should also be completed because it will provide an alternative route for Russian gas exports to the EU. In his words, the major gas pipeline running from Russia to Europe will have to be repaired over the next three years because of the risk of technical problems which might lead to a crisis of Russian gas supplies whose dimensions might be similar to the January 2009 dispute between Russia and the Ukraine.

South Stream is widely regarded as a competitor to Nabucco that tightens Russia’s energy grip on the EU.





Medicating the military

25 03 2010

STEVEN DOLLSpc. Michael Kern has been prescribed a cocktail of drugs as part of his “Warrior in Transition” plan, as he deals with PTSD and other issues since his Iraq deployment.

Medicating the military

Use of psychiatric drugs has spiked; concerns surface about suicide, other dangers
By Andrew Tilghman and Brendan McGarry – Staff writers
Posted : Wednesday Mar 17, 2010 12:18:59 EDT

At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug.

And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations.

The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides.

“It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.

A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

THE FULL INVESTIGATION:

Could meds be responsible for suicides?

Downrange: ‘Any soldier can deploy on anything’

How drugs enter the war zone

Troops and military health care providers also told Military Times that these medications are being prescribed, consumed, shared and traded in combat zones — despite some restrictions on the deployment of troops using those drugs.

The investigation also shows that drugs originally developed to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are now commonly used to treat symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as headaches, nightmares, nervousness and fits of anger.

Such “off-label” use — prescribing medications to treat conditions for which the drugs were not formally approved by the FDA — is legal and even common. But experts say the lack of proof that these treatments work for other purposes, without fully understanding side effects, raises serious concerns about whether the treatments are safe and effective.

The DLA records detail the range of drugs being prescribed to the military community and the spending on them:

* Antipsychotic medications, including Seroquel and Risperdal, spiked most dramatically — orders jumped by more than 200 percent, and annual spending more than quadrupled, from $4 million to $16 million.

* Use of anti-anxiety drugs and sedatives such as Valium and Ambien also rose substantially; orders increased 170 percent, while spending nearly tripled, from $6 million to about $17 million.

* Antiepileptic drugs, also known as anticonvulsants, were among the most commonly used psychiatric medications. Annual orders for these drugs increased about 70 percent, while spending more than doubled, from $16 million to $35 million.

* Antidepressants had a comparatively modest 40 percent gain in orders, but it was the only drug group to show an overall decrease in spending, from $49 million in 2001 to $41 million in 2009, a drop of 16 percent. The debut in recent years of cheaper generic versions of these drugs is likely responsible for driving down costs.

Antidepressants and anticonvulsants are the most common mental health medications prescribed to service members. Seventeen percent of the active-duty force, and as much as 6 percent of deployed troops, are on antidepressants, Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, the Army’s highest-ranking psychiatrist, told Congress on Feb. 24.

In contrast, about 10 percent of all Americans take antidepressants, according to a 2009 Columbia University study.

SUICIDE RISKS

Many of the newest psychiatric drugs come with strong warnings about an increased risk for suicide, suicidal behavior and suicidal thoughts.

Doctors — and, more recently, lawmakers — are questioning whether the drugs could be responsible for the spike in military suicides during the past several years, an upward trend that roughly parallels the rise in psychiatric drug use.

From 2001 to 2009, the Army’s suicide rate increased more than 150 percent, from 9 per 100,000 soldiers to 23 per 100,000. The Marine Corps suicide rate is up about 50 percent, from 16.7 per 100,000 Marines in 2001 to 24 per 100,000 last year. Orders for psychiatric drugs in the analysis rose 76 percent over the same period.

“There is overwhelming evidence that the newer antidepressants commonly prescribed by the military can cause or worsen suicidality, aggression and other dangerous mental states,” said Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who testified at the same Feb. 24 congressional hearing at which Sutton appeared.

Other side effects — increased irritability, aggressiveness and hostility — also could pose a risk.

“Imagine causing that in men and women who are heavily armed and under a great deal of stress,” Breggin said.

He cited dozens of clinical studies conducted by drug companies and submitted to federal regulators, including one among veterans that showed “completed suicide rates were approximately twice the base rate following antidepressant starts in VA clinical settings.”

But many military doctors say the risks are overstated and argue that the greater risk would be to fail to fully treat depressed troops.

For suicide, “depression is a big risk factor,” too, said Army Reserve Col. (Dr.) Thomas Hicklin, who teaches clinical psychiatry at the University of Southern California. “To withhold the medications can be a huge problem.”

Nevertheless, Hicklin said the risks demand strict oversight. “The access to weapons is a very big concern with someone who is feeling suicidal,” he said. “It has to be monitored very carefully because side effects can occur.”

Defense officials repeatedly have denied requests by Military Times for copies of autopsy reports that would show the prevalence of such drugs in suicide toxicology reports.

‘THEN IT’S OVER’

Spc. Mike Kern enlisted in 2006 and spent a year deployed in 2008 with the 4th Infantry Division as an armor crewman, running patrols out of southwest Baghdad.

Kern went to the mental health clinic suffering from nervousness, sleep problems and depression. He was given Paxil, an antidepressant that carries a warning label about increased risk for suicide.

A few days later, while patrolling the streets in the gunner’s turret of a Humvee, he said he began having serious thoughts of suicide for the first time in his life.

“I had three weapons: a pistol, my rifle and a machine gun,” Kern said. “I started to think, ‘I could just do this and then it’s over.’ That’s where my brain was: ‘I can just put this gun right here and pull the trigger and I’m done. All my problems will be gone.’”

Kern said the incident scared him, and he did not take any more drugs during that deployment. But since his return, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and currently takes a variety of psychotropic medications.

Other side effects cited by troops who used such drugs in the war zones include slowed reaction times, impaired motor skills, and attention and memory problems.

One 35-year-old Army sergeant first class said he was prescribed the anticonvulsant Topamax to prevent the onset of debilitating migraines. But the drug left him feeling mentally sluggish, and he stopped taking it.

“Some people call it ‘Stupamax’ because it makes you stupid,” said the sergeant, who asked not to be identified because he said using such medication carries a social stigma in the military.

Being slow — or even “stupid” — might not be a critical problem for some civilians. But it can be deadly for troops working with weapons or patrolling dangerous areas in a war zone, said Dr. John Newcomer, a psychiatry professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a former fellow at the American Psychiatric Association.

“A drug that is really effective and it makes you feel happy and calm and sleepy … might be a great medication for the general population,” Newcomer said, “but that might not make sense for an infantryman in a combat arena.

“If it turns out that people on a certain combo are getting shot twice as often, you would start to worry if they were as ‘heads up’ as they should have been,” Newcomer said. “There is so much on the line, you’d really like to have more specific military data to inform the prescribing.”

Military doctors say they take a service member’s mission into consideration before prescribing.

“Obviously, one would be concerned about what the person does,” said Col. C.J. Diebold, chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii. “If they have a desk job, that may factor in what medication you may be recommending for the patient [compared with] if they are out there and they have to be moving around and reacting fairly quickly.”

OFF-LABEL USE

Little hard research has been done on such unique aspects of psychiatric drug usage in the military, particularly off-label usage.

A 2009 VA study found that 60 percent of veterans receiving antipsychotics were taking them for problems for which the drugs are not officially approved. For example, only two are approved for treating PTSD — Paxil and Zoloft, according to the Food and Drug Administration. But in actuality, doctors prescribe a range of drugs to treat PTSD symptoms.

To win FDA approval, drug makers must prove efficacy through rigorous and costly clinical trials. But approval determines only how a drug can be marketed; once a drug is approved for sale, doctors legally can prescribe it for any reason they feel appropriate.

Such off-label use comes with some risk, experts say.

“Patients may be exposed to drugs that have problematic side effects without deriving any benefit,” said Dr. Robert Rosenheck, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who studied off-label drug use among veterans. “We just don’t know. There haven’t been very many studies.”

Some military psychiatrists are reluctant to prescribe off-label.

“It’s a slippery slope,” said Hicklin, the Army psychiatrist. “Medication can be overused. We need to use medication when indicated and we hope that we are all on the same page … with that.”

Combinations of drugs pose another risk. Doctors note that most drugs are tested as a single treatment, not as one ingredient in a mixture of medications.

“In the case of poly-drug use – the ‘cocktail’ — where you are combining an antidepressant, an anticonvulsant, an antipsychotic, and maybe a stimulant to keep this guy awake — that has never been tested,” Breggin said.

Newcomer agreed. “When we go to the literature and try to find support for these complex cocktails, we’re not going to find it,” he said. “As the number of medications goes up, the probability of adverse events like hospitalization or death goes up exponentially.”

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS

Pinpointing the reasons for broad shifts in the military’s drug use today is difficult. Each doctor prescribes medications for the patient’s individual needs.

Nevertheless, many doctors in and outside the military point to several variables — some unique to the military, some not.

A close look at the data shows that use of the antipsychotic and anticonvulsant drugs, also known as “mood stabilizers,” are growing much faster than antidepressants. That may correlate to the challenges that deployed troops face when they arrive back home and begin to readjust to civilian social norms and family life.

“The ultimate effect of both of these drugs is to take the heightened arousal — the hypervigilance and all the emotions that served you once you were deployed — and help to turn that back down,” said Dr. Frank Ochberg, former associate director for the National Institute of Mental Health and a psychiatry professor at Michigan State University who reviewed the Military Times analysis.

Dr. Harry Holloway, a retired Army colonel and a psychiatry professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., said the increased use of these medications is simply another sign of deployment stress on the force.

“For a long time, the ops tempo has been completely unrelieved and unrestrained,” Holloway said. “When you have an increased ops tempo, and you have certain scheduling that will make it hard for everyone, you will produce a more symptomatic force. Most commanders understand that and they understand the tradeoffs.”





Petraeus Wants To Be America’s Musharraf

25 03 2010

Petraeus Stirs Political Chatter With Visit to Key Presidential Primary Town

FOXNews.com

http://therearenosunglasses.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/alqaedasglobalbaseispakpetraeus_4736.jpg?w=510

Gen. David Petraeus gave a talk Wednesday evening at New Hampshire’s Saint Anselm College, a must-see campus for presidential candidates in a must-see state that hosts the first-in-the-nation primaries. Coincidence?

Gen. David Petraeus addresses the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington Jan. 21. (AP Photo)

When a rumor spread last March that Gen. David Petraeus would be speaking at the University of Iowa in 2010, speculation that he was exploring presidential politics became so rampant that Central Command had to issue a statement saying the Iowa news was false.

Weekly Standard columnist Michael Goldfarb, whose column was the source of the frenzy, later admitted he was joking about a Petraeus trip, and that the gag went too far.

This time, it’s no joke.

Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, gave a talk Wednesday evening at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, a must-see campus for presidential candidates in a must-see state that hosts the first-in-the-nation primaries.

He told a group of reporters there he will never run for political office and that he wasn’t aware Saint Anselm College has been the site for numerous presidential debates.

“I thought I’ve said ‘no’ as many ways as I could,” he said. “I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you of that.”

During Wednesday evening’s talk, he highlighted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus says the violence in Iraq has dropped dramatically but Afghanistan’s local government remains the biggest obstacle.

“Getting that local governance piece so the government is serving the people and is not preying on them or corrupting them is the long pole in that tent,” he said.

Sure, he owns property in New Hampshire and is registered to vote there. But that hasn’t stopped a new wave of speculation that the modest, scholarly general credited with leading the “surge” that turned around the Iraq war is, if not positioning himself, at least stirring the pot about his presidential prospects.

“That’s what my students are all chattering about now,” said Jonathan Acuff, an assistant political professor at Saint Anselm  who works with the Institute of Politics putting on the talk.

Petraeus has been assiduous in shooting down rumors about his political aspirations;  in several interviews with Fox News, he has said he has “no desire” to seek elected office.

He pledged no interest in running during an appearance at the Georgetown Law Center in January and again at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia last month.

So objective is Petraeus — a registered Republican — that he told Fox News in December that he stopped voting in 2002.

But it’s impossible to prove a negative — that Petraeus won’t run or isn’t interested — and the fact that most potential candidates deny interest in running this early inevitably leaves that door open.

Saint Anselm College, in Manchester, N.H., is a prominent presidential debate venue; the college hosted debates for both parties in 2007 and 2008.

“I think he would immediately be a force if he decided to run as a Republican,” said Republican strategist John Feehery, noting that “tension” between him and President Obama might be the precursor to an epic battle.

“Petraeus turned out to be right on Iraq and Obama turned out to be completely wrong,” he said. “I think it would be monumental (if he ran).”

Feehery, though, said a presidential run is probably not what’s going through Petraeus’ mind at the moment — while the U.S. military is still waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq — and that the New Hampshire visit is probably just that.

“The fact that he’s from New Hampshire and he’s speaking to a college campus as opposed to a local Republican club would lead you to believe sometimes talking to a bunch of college kids is just talking to a bunch of college kids,” he said. “If he’s got a book out, then we’ve got something.”

The talk was billed as a discussion of the Iraq surge and “the role of American forces overseas.” Petraeus was not interviewed by FoxNews.com for this article, but a Central Command official said Petraeus’ visit is in no way part of a campaign strategy.

Col. Steve Boylan, a former top aide to Petraeus, also dismissed the speculation.

“What many people don’t understand about General Petraeus is … he is a fervent believer in education. That’s why he talks at many colleges and universities,” he said. “He has no desires for elected office. … That’s not something he sees for himself.”

Acuff said chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff might be on Petraeus’ mind, but that a bid for president is unlikely.

“He has the structural opportunity if he wanted to run in the Republican Party, because of the general leadership vacuum there,” Acuff said. But he noted that Petraeus’ sterling national security portfolio might not be enough against a fiscally minded candidate like Mitt Romney.

The American tradition of high-ranking military officers ascending to the presidency has faded in the last half-century, since Dwight Eisenhower was the last general to occupy the White House.

Colin Powell, who had at the time recently finished his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was considered a possible challenger to President Clinton in 1996 but ultimately declined. And Wesley Clark, who led forces in Kosovo as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, but he dropped out to endorse Sen. John Kerry.

Petraeus, a Princeton-educated official, draws a broad audience. Republicans can’t figure out what he wants, but many have made clear they consider him a national asset and figure worthy of the country’s respect — and possibly more.

“He’s an American hero, a great leader,” said New Hampshire GOP spokesman Ryan Williams, who plans to attend the speech Wednesday. “I don’t know if he wants a political future, but he did a fantastic job leading America’s brave men and women.

“New Hampshire Republicans have a lot of respect for General Petraeus,” he said.

FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger, Fox News’ Jake Gibson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.





Hackers Shut-Down Turkish Weekly–(cached)

25 03 2010

Friday, 12 February 2010

The Web site for Turkey’s leading Armenian newspaper was hacked in the early hours on Friday.

Hackers identifying themselves as “AK Hacker” overtook the Agos Web site and put up an image of Ogün Samast, the alleged murderer of the former editor in chief of the daily, Hrant Dink. The image was accompanied by a text that criticized opposition to the ruling party and stated the act of hacking was “an action that will go on to spread like poison to others who oppose the current powers.”

The note also made a chilling threat given the murder of Hrant Dink: “If you do not fix your reporting in the way we see fit, there will be new Ogün Samasts and new Hrant Dinks.”

Here’s a translation of the full text on thehacked site:

“You either love or you leave it. Or like the traitor Hrant, you die and disappear. You are you. You know yourself as much as we know you. You lived through what you deserved and it will continue as such. This act take on behalf of the Turkish flag, which is not on your Web site, and in the name of the Turkish Republic, will continue to spread like poison to others who oppose the current powers and everyone who opposes will be affected as such. If you do not change your articles and your words and your actions along the lines that we see fit, then there will be new Ogün Samasts and new Hrant Dinks. Thinking you’re smart is your biggest ignorance. Just as the traitors who have given up their Turkishness will one day be expelled from the borders of this country, Turkey will be cleansed thanks to the current powers in Turkey and all slander campaigns will be unsuccessful and inconclusive from now on.

“GAME OVER!

“Who are we?

“Hate, loathsome, Müco, Mr. Bond

“Do you remember?

“Ak Hackers”





Indian military to weaponise world’s hottest chili

25 03 2010
Indian military to weaponise world's hottest chili

Guwahati: The Indian military has a new weapon against terrorism: The world’s hottest chili.After conducting tests, the military has decided to use the thumb-sized ‘bhut jolokia’, or “ghost chili,” to make tear gas-like hand grenades to immobilize suspects, defense officials said.

The ‘bhut jolokia’ was accepted by Guinness World Records in 2007 as the world’s spiciest chili. It is grown and eaten in India’s northeast for its taste, as a cure for stomach troubles and a way to fight the crippling summer heat.

Image: In this July 4, 2007 file photo, a farmer shows a “Bhut jolokia” or “ghost chili” pepper plucked from his field in Assam.

Text & Images: AP





Hezb-i-Islami set to meet with UN today

25 03 2010

Hezb-i-Islami set to meet with UN today

* Group’s spokesman claims plans to speak with EU representatives as well

KABUL: Representatives of the Hezb-i-Islami, a militant group linked to an infamous Afghan warlord, are hoping to convince UN officials today that the time is right for a peace deal with insurgents.

Hezb-i-Islami spokesman Muhammad Daoud Abedi said that the UN asked a delegation for a meeting, which follows talks that the Taliban-linked group had with President Hamid Karzai earlier this week.

EU representatives: He said the group also plans to speak with representatives from the European Union, but an official at the EU office said he had no knowledge of any meeting with the delegation.

Talk about possible reconciliation with insurgent groups, however, has not reduced violence, especially in southern Afghanistan where a major military operation is under way to rout the Taliban from parts of Helmand province. NATO said two service members were killed on Wednesday in a bombing, and another died as a result of small-arms attack, in the south. It is the first time that high-ranking representatives of the insurgent group, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, have travelled to Kabul to discuss peace. It’s uncertain whether the talks with Hekmatyar’s group will lead to an end game in the eight-year war, given the group’s demand for a quick exit of foreign forces. Hezb-i-Islami wants international forces to begin withdrawing in July – a year ahead of President Barack Obama’s desired deadline to begin a pullout, if conditions allow. But Abedi said the group is flexible on that main point of its 15-point peace offer.

“That is a starting point,” Abedi said in a telephone interview. “If we start the process, we can be ready by another year or so. If President Obama wants the situation to be right for the withdrawal of the foreign forces from Afghanistan, he should start talking and taking some firm, honest steps to make the situation acceptable for that day. That’s why we are putting this proposal on the table, to say ‘If you really mean this, then let’s work and get this thing done”,’ he said.

US Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden has said US officials have no plans to meet with representatives of Hekmatyar’s group. Abedi said the delegation hoped European officials would persuade the US government to get involved in the negotiations.

“The ball is in their court.” Abedi said. “If the US government would like to leave in honour and leave something behind that the Afghan people and the international community would be proud and grateful for, it is good for them to expedite the peace process, get involved in the negotiations and bring out their concerns so we could answer them and together we could get this all done and bring this ugly war to an end,” he added. ap





Baloch Liberation Army Claims Pakistani Jet Shot Down

25 03 2010

BLA shot down Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-7 aircraft

Posted by admin on 2010/3/23 18:00:00 (37 reads)
Open in new window
BLA shot down Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-7 aircraft during an encounter near Quetta hills the jet over flew very near at the range of Baloch anti aircraft guns, one RPG was shot at the aircraft and soon after smoke was seen from the aircraft and it came tumbling down one pilot was killed while other one was seen parachuting.

According to PAF spokesman, one of the pilots Flight Lt. Gulfam Soomro was killed while another ejected safely.





Anit-War Protestors Urge Soldiers to Resist Deployment

25 03 2010

Anit-War Protestors Urge Soldiers to Resist Deployment

By Dan Bluemel

Marking the seventh anniversary of the Iraq War, anti-war demonstrators marched on Hollywood Boulevard Saturday to protest the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Leading the march along Hollywood Boulevard from Vine Street to Grauman’s Chinese Theatre were veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Holding hand-made flags representing Blackwater, Chase-Manhattan Bank, AIG, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron and Boeing, the veterans formed a sort of Wall Street Color Guard to call attention to corporate America’s role in U.S. foreign policy.

Iraq War veteran Michael Prysner, a Founding Member of March Forward, an anti-war organization that is made up of veterans and service members, spoke at the rally connecting a soldier’s service to their country as a service to corporate America.

“We are nothing more than muscle, thugs for the banks and Wall Street,” he said. “They don’t care about our lives, the lives of those overseas. They only care about profit.”

Long-time peace activist, Vietnam veteran and author of “Born on the Fourth of July” Ron Kovic joined the veterans in their march. “I think Iraq was a terrible mistake,” he said. “These young men and women deserve not to have their lives wasted. That’s why we are here today.”

Kovic was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam, as well as the Purple Heart for an injury that left him paralyzed at the waist. “I’m very proud of my service to my country, and most proud of my commitment to non-violence,” he said.

Speaking for the veterans present at the demonstration, Kovic said that they love their country despite their criticisms. “The people who came out today are proud and passionate,” he said. “This is the best of democracy. This is what my sacrifice was about, to assemble peacefully and non-violently.”

Blase Bonpane, KPFK radio host and Director of Office of the Americas, an international justice and peace organization, spoke at the demonstration encouraging soldiers to resist their orders to deploy. He said 50,000 soldiers have refused to go overseas, and though difficult, hundreds have gone public about it.

“This is how the war in Vietnam ended,” he said. “Soldiers realized they were lied to and resisted.”

For Bonpane, he sees the Iraq War as being 19 years old. “I was there in 1991,” he said. “It was a massacre and it hasn’t stopped.”

Kovic led the crowd in a sit-in where demonstrators halted the march and sat in the street. He held two-minutes of silence in honor of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is a movement of compassion and caring that respects all life,” he said to the crowd. “We will continue to sit in greater and greater numbers in the streets until these wars are ended.”

Present in the demonstration were two candidates for public office that have aligned themselves with the anti-war movement.

Richard Castaldo is running against Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) for the Peace and Freedom Party. Castaldo, paralyzed at the waist from gunshot wounds suffered in the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, said he got involved in politics because of the war and Wall Street bailouts.

“I feel, as a nation, we could be doing a lot better,” he said.

If elected, Castaldo said, his first objective would be to work against corporate influence in Washington.

Long Beach mayoral candidate Stevie Merino was also present at the demonstration. Merino, 21, is a student at Cerritos College. She is running against incumbent Mayor Bob Foster for the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

She finds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a hindrance to public education. “We need to stop funding wars and start funding people’s needs,” she said. “Education is a right, not a privilege for a select few.”

The demonstration began around noon and ended shortly after 3:30 p.m. LAPD on site said there was no trouble or arrests connected to the march and rally. The Los Angeles demonstration was held in conjunction with protests in San Francisco and Washington, D.C.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers