In the End, Afghanistan Will Be a High-Tech War of Attrition

A contracted air plane drops humanitarian aide supplies for Aka Sadiq to U.S. Marines and Afghan National Army soldiers at a drop site during a three-day combat reconnaissance patrol in the Bala Baluk District, Farah province, Afghanistan, March 30, 2010. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Nicholas Pilch

U.S. military goes hungry in Afghanistan

The United States Military is in the midst of a troop surge in Afghanistan, but the surge has caused the ratio of resources to troops to widen. Many American Forward Operating Bases are experiencing food and water shortages.
Sgt. Hill, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, has been in Afghanistan only a few months as part of the new troop surge into the country. The troops are mainly focused on training and promoting the Afghanistan army and police force. The training is the United States’ attempt to “teach a man to fish,” in the security department of the ever turbulent country, a country which is still undecided if it wants to break free from Taliban influence. With these larger issues at hand the need for proper amounts of food and water have fallen by the wayside.Initially it was expected that resources for surging troops would be low, as many bases were unprepared for the push ordered by the Obama administration. The surge, it is argued, was far too swift and did not give the military time to lay the proper infrastructure and provide housing and other amenities for the troops. The reality of the lack of preparation has been felt by Sgt. Hill and other troops currently in Afghanistan.Over weeks of correspondence Sgt. Hill has informed Digital Journal of the conditions the logistics of just being able to eat. General McChrystal announced that fast food places like Burger King and Pizza Hut were going to be shut down and moved to make more room for essentials the troops will need for war.As reported on Digital Journal:

“Supplying non-essential luxuries to big bases like Bagram and Kandahar makes it harder to get essential items to combat outposts and forward operating bases, where troops fighting every day need to be resupplied with ammunition, food and water.”By closing up the outlets, the FRAGO’s design is intended to free up storage space, provide secure areas for equipment, and reduce flight and convoy traffic across the country.

This action may have made matters worse for soldiers who are on missions during designated chow hall times.At Camp Mike Spann some soldiers have been forced to skip up to three meals a day, and are forbidden to eat Meals Ready to Eat (MRE’s) unless they are on an evening mission to save on the lack of available rations. The Chow Hall at Camp Mike Spann is not open 24 hours and civilian and military workers are not happy if anyone attempts to even serve themselves prepackaged bowls of cereal when the cafeteria is not open.The infrastructure has not been freed up a significant amount to allow for the proper shipping of food and beverages, Sgt. Hill says. At Camp Mike Spann, in particular, there have been times when they have run out of drinks and other food items. There is no potable water available so troops rely on bottled water for hydration.The Camp chow hall is now closed for lunch and only serving breakfast and dinner to be able to stretch out the available food since another troop wave hit. Today Sgt. Hill casually mentioned the situation behind being able to get food. To be able to speak with me, he has to wait up to a half an hour in a line for 10 minutes on the computer.

Sgt Hill: The chow hall just now opened. While I’m here and the line is already (an hour and a half long). Guess I am not eating again..Digital Journal: Wow. Somebody should do something about that. Maybe call congress?Sgt. Hill: Nah. Conservatives think we should just suck it up because we are in a war zone, and Liberals want us all to die anyway. Nobody gives a F***.

Camp Mike Spann is not the only place dealing with a shortage of food and water. An article in Stars and Stripes brought to attention the hardships of one Marine Encampment. At Marine Combat Outpost Contu ,”there are no beds, no showers, no toilets and no electricity. Chickens and ducks roam the bare dirt yard amid scraps of trash and rotting animal dung. Fleas, flies and filth are the grunts’ constant companions.” They doubt they will see permanent living crates or even cots. They sleep with flees and chiggers and have very little food available to them. They say living like pioneers in the 1800s has given them a new appreciation for things like a bath or a shower and clean clothes.

French Leader Sarkozy Slams Obama, Warns He Might Be Insane

French Leader Sarkozy Slams Obama, Warns He Might Be Insane

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently“obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy [photo top right with Obama] as stating that President Barack Obama is “a  dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a“mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular,“insane”.

According to this report, Sarkozy was“appalled” at Obama’s “vision” of what the World should be under his “guidance” and“amazed” at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either “reason” or “logic”.  Sarkozy’s meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he“scolded” Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say.

Apparently, as this report details, the animosity between Sarkozy and Obama arose out of how best the West can deal with the growing threat posed by rising Islamic fundamentalism. Both Sarkozy and his European neighbors had previously been supported in their efforts by the United States in forming an alliance to strengthen the integration of Muslim peoples into their societies, and has including France and Belgiummoving to ban the wearing of burqa’s.

European fears over their growing Muslim populations appear to be valid as the growing immigration and birth rates of these Islamic peoples are warned is causing the “Eurabiazation” of the Continent and within a few generations will see them become the majority of nearly all of the EU Nations.

The greatest threat to these Western Nations posed by the Muslim peoples becoming the majority of their populations lies in their likelihood of destroying the Global Banking System which according to their faith is firmly rooted in “satanic” evil and “must” be replaced by an Islamic one.

[Note: Islamic banking refers to a system of banking or banking activity that is consistent with the principles of Islamic law (Sharia) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. Sharia prohibits the payment or acceptance of interest fees for the lending and accepting of money respectively, (Riba, usury) for specific terms, as well as investing in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to its principles (Haraam, forbidden).

Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t share the views of his European allies and has, instead, embarked upon a course of embracing the Muslim peoples of the World and to the shock of all has overturned the Bush era banon the radical Swiss born Muslim Cleric Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States, last year ordered the US government bailed out General Electric Capital Corporation to became the first Western multinational toissue an Islamic bond, and this past week commanded that all of his governments security documents eliminate the words “Islamic extremism” and “jihad”.

Sarkozy in these reports further warns that by Obama’s “unrestrained” and “destabilizing” actions an already tense Global situation is growing ever more catastrophic as America’s once stalwart allies are being cast aside in favor of a New World Order where instead of the United States securing its vital energy future through conquest and war it will now do so by appeasement to some of the most violent and radical regimes on Earth, and as we can see exampled:

In Egypt…where the 30-year reign of the stalwart US ally President Hosni Mubarak is being allowed by Obama to fall so that this most vital of Middle Eastern countries can be ruled by the former head of the United Nationsnuclear watchdog agency,  Mohamed ElBaradei, who allowed through his appeasement the Persian Nation of Iran to gain the knowledge, equipment and expertise needed to build an atomic bomb.

In Turkey…where Obama in failing to stop, like all American Presidents before him, his Congress from passing a law blaming that critical Eurasian Nation for the 1915 Armenian genocide left Turkish Prime MinisterTayyip Erdoğan no choice but to recall his ambassador to the US.

In Kyrgyzstan…where Obama failed to stop a revolution against the American installed President thus allowing Russian Prime Minister Putin to achieve his goal of revolutionary change for that critical Central Asian Nation and putting in jeopardy the United States war in Afghanistan as the new Kyrgyz government prepares to throw the Americans out of their country thus depriving them of their main air supply route to their already undersupplied troops battling the Afghan Taliban.

In India…where by Obama’s failing to support the Indians fight against Pakistani backed Muslim terrorists has caused the second most powerful Asian Nation to turn towards Iran rebuffing all Western attempts to isolate them and instead of their participating in Obama’s Global Nuclear Summit have, instead, agreed to attend the Iranians.

In Pakistan…where just this week Obama gave this vital American ally a “public slap on the wrist” by denying to them the same nuclear deal he had previously given to India thus insuring the Pakistani military will cease their support for American troops in Afghanistan battling the Taliban.

In Afghanistan…where Obama has engaged in a public war with his ally President Karzai who because so enraged he threatened this past week to change his allegiance from the Americans to the Taliban.

In Israel…where Obama has so demoralized and demonized their once most reliable ally that Prime MinisterNetanyahu has just announced he will not attend Obama’s Global Nuclear Summit because of his fears that the American President will not keep Egypt and Turkey under control thus threatening the Israelis nuclear supremacy over their Middle Eastern enemies who have sworn to destroy them.

In Brazil…where Obama has ordered his Defense Secretary Robert Gates to sign an historic defense agreement with this South American nuclear power whose President, Lula da Silva, has praised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, slammed Israel, and has announced his intentions to visit Iran next month.

To all of these actions (and too many more to mention in this short report) Russian Military Analysts warn that Obama has pushed our world towards total global war more than any single leader since Nazi Germany’s Adolph Hitler, to which Russia and China are, likewise, preparing to confront to stop the Americans.

Most unfortunately for those Americans living under the Obama regime is that their attempts to stop the radical socialism he has pushed upon them from destroying their once great Nation has failed as new reports from the United States are showing that in under two years Obama and his cohorts have succeeded in making nearly 50% of these people support the other 50% who aren’t working. (And which really should surprise none of them as during his campaign for the Presidency he openly vowed to “redistribute the wealth”, but which history has always shown makes everyone a pauper, except for the elites that is.)

For any of the few Americans left daring to oppose Obama we had previously warned about the massive death camps he is preparing for them, but which these most strange of peoples continue to deny the existence of in their naïve belief that if they choose not to believe a thing it makes it not true. (If this behavior sounds familiar it is only because Obama and his cohorts have, literally, used the same playbook used by the Nazis against the once free German people.)

And for those even daring to expose the truth of what is being done to the American people Obama took the unprecedented step this week of authorizing for the first time in American history his secret government intelligence services to assassinate one of their own citizens without benefit of trial leaving every human rights organization in the World in shock, including Tina Foster of the US-based International Justice Network who said, “I am in shock that they would do this. It is shocking that our Government would go to these extremes, even depriving someone of their life without a legal process.

Now to if Sarkozy’s grim and dire assessment of Obama is true or not it is not in our knowing, nor do these reports say.  But, it is important to note that nearly all of the longstanding allies of the United States Obama has turned his back on are, admittedly, some really bad (to say the least) leaders who no one in their right mind would want to live under.

And too Obama’s apparent appeasement of Islamic terrorists there is growing evidence of his maybe throwing all his marbles (so to speak) in “one fell swoop”, and as evidenced by the 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs he last month authorized Florida based Superior Maritime Services Concord to “immediately” ship from California to the massive US Air Force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which is in striking distance of Iran and if all of them were dropped on the Iranians would, literally, destroy them.

In finding the deliberately hidden clues as to what will happen as The Great Game nears its inevitable climax all caution must be taken, including to whom you might tell your most secret of thoughts, and as evidenced in the United States this past week should NEVER be voiced to your children, and as we can read as reported by the Info Wars News Service:

“A family in Williamson County, Austin have lost custody of their 7-year-old son as part of a Child Protective Services investigation because the parents taught their children to mistrust the government, an action that deemed them to be “unsuitable parents,” according to charges leveled by police officers in CPS documents.”

And to those still mocking the truths of these times, who continually fail to see what lies before them, we can only say you’re being the good and obedient lemmings you were brought up to be.  So go back to sleep and dream the sweetest dreams you can, because before you know it you’ll be awakening in a living nightmare as those as ignorant as you, throughout all of history, have learned to their peril and loss.

To everyone else in America we can only advise you to begin stocking up for the End of the World….you won’t be alone.

Fugitive Kyrgyz President Warns of Bloodshed

Fugitive Kyrgyz President Warns of Bloodshed

Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times

At least several hundred supporters of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev prayed at a rally in the village of Teyit.

Denis Sinyakov/Reuters

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan at a rally of supporters in Teyit, Kyrgyzstan, on Monday.

By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ

TEYIT, Kyrgyzstan — The president of this strategically important country, who was forced from the capital last week by rioting protesters, returned to public view on Monday, holding a rally with supporters and declaring that if the interim government that supplanted him seeks his arrest, “there will be blood.”

The president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, has retreated to his ancestral stronghold here in southernKyrgyzstan, several hours south of the capital, Bishkek. He has given interviews to journalists at his compound in recent days, but on Monday a crowd of 500 or so people gathered there for a demonstration.

“Let them try to come and take me,” he told journalists after the rally. “Let them try to destroy me. There will be blood.”

Mr. Bakiyev was responding to statements in the capital, Bishkek, on Monday from leaders of the interim government that they intended to arrest him.

The fate of Mr. Bakiyev has been a source of tension around the country. On Monday, the United States Embassy in Bishkek issued a statement saying that it would play no role in resolving his status.

“The U.S. Embassy has no plans to shelter Mr. Bakiyev or help him leave Kyrgyzstan,” the embassy said. “Reports to the contrary are completely inaccurate.”

The embassy also said that the United States ambassador, Tatiana C. Gfoeller, met on Monday with the head of the interim government, Roza Otunbayeva, to express condolences over the loss of life last week.

The nation is the site of an important American air base that supports the NATO war effort in Afghanistan. Flights to Afghanistan from the base have resumed, the embassyannounced Monday.

On Sunday, Mr. Bakiyev insisted in an interview that he retained popular support, and he mocked the interim government.

“They have changed all the leaders, but that does not mean that they have taken control,” Mr. Bakiyev said. “They have no authority and no influence.”

His insistence that he retained power threatened to further destabilize Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia with a population of five million.

Mr. Bakiyev fled the capital on Wednesday after crowds of demonstrators, angered over what they termed his corrupt and repressive rule, clashed with the police and the presidential guard, which responded with gunfire. More than 80 people were killed, according to the interim government, and hundreds were wounded. The capital was largely calm over the weekend, with uniformed police officers returning to the street and shops opening.

Since he fled, Mr. Bakiyev had issued statements of defiance from Kyrgyzstan’s south, but his exact whereabouts had been a mystery until Sunday, when news of his presence here spread. Cab drivers had no trouble locating Mr. Bakiyev’s walled compound here in the village of Teyit, outside the city of Jalalabad.

Black-clad guards patrolling the perimeter calmly admitted visitors, and Mr. Bakiyev granted an interview to a reporter in a large traditional Kyrgyz yurt, or tent, that was set up outside his family’s home.

Sitting at a large, chandelier-lighted conference table and wearing a suit but no tie, Mr. Bakiyev appeared relaxed but determined. He gave no indication that he intended to try to retake power violently, but he also made clear that he would not surrender to the interim government.

He said he retained strong support among the people of Kyrgyzstan, especially in the south. He said that he had been traveling the region and meeting with his allies to ensure that he would be able “to prevent the kind of bloodshed that occurred in Bishkek.”

But Mr. Bakiyev appeared to be running out of options, as more and more regional leaders voiced support for the interim government in Bishkek or resigned. A spokesman for the interim government confirmed Sunday that the mayor of Jalalabad and the governor of the Jalalabad region had been replaced by supporters of the interim leader, Roza Otunbayeva.

For the first time, Mr. Bakiyev addressed the violence that occurred Wednesday, defending the actions of his security forces and saying they fired only when bullets crashed into his office and nearly hit him at the government’s headquarters, called the White House.

“The people who guard the White House never shoot at peaceful citizens without a reason,” he said.

Obama Finishing World Domination Plans

Obama’s revival of the Baruch Plan for Rothschild world domination through a private monopoly of nuclear weapons

DICK EASTMAN

When nuclear power is eliminated from the hands of all nationalist governments, the Rothschilds will control their own as a monopoly and their secret private space-based delivery system as well.  Say hello to your new god.

Obama’s Plan for Elimination of Nation-Controlled Nuclear Power is a revival of the “Baruch Plan” for  a world government monopoly of  nuclear weapons, ensuring that no individual nation could control atomic power either for defense or peaceful uses.   Under the Baruch Plan (a plan worked out with Rothschild agent and infiltrated communist agent Secretary of State Dean Acheson and David Lilienthal, the Lazard Freres head of the US Atomic Energy Commission,   who invented the term “multinational corporation” and who later founded, with money from Lazard Freres, the international engineering venture company, Development and Resources Corporation, funded by governments and following the model Lilienthal developed from experience gained heading the Tennessee Valley Authority, the US’s first great socialist development project.  The Development and Resources Corporation functioned much like Halliburton, Schlumberger and Tesco.

Although originally  funded by Lazard Freres, the company was later bought by the oldest son of Nelson Rockefeller, Rodman Rockefeller, president of the International Basic Economy Corporation (a pioneer and leader in commercial genetics and global agribusiness – Rodman also was the American co-chair  of the Mexico-United States Business Committee which produced the North American Free Trade Agreement    –  but Development and Resources Corporation foundered when the Shah of Iran was overthrown by a movement of Moslem nationalists abrogated all contracts with the company.

Baruch invented the term Cold War, just as his owned minion Winston Churchill invented the term “Iron Curtain.”  Lilienthal for a time headed that part of the Military Industrial Complex that kept the US in atomic weapons, in an arms race bankrolled with borrowings from Lazard Freres and other Rothschild-allied investment banks.

As I was saying, the Obama Plan is simply the latest attempt at implementing a version of the Baruch Plan for a monopoly of atomic power by international power unanswerable to any nation.

Baruch, Acheson and Lilenthal proposed an International Atomic Development Authority  with complete power over atomic development all over the world and complete power to use atomic power to prevent atomic power.  The movie The Day the Earth Stood Still was based on a story that was propaganda for the Baruch Plan, with the UN AEC taking the part of all-powerful and indestructible Gort the robot – the message laid out by Clatu the representative of the “united planets” being:   “follow us and live in peace or pursue your present course and face obliteration.”  When nations no longer have control of nuclear power only Zionist Internationalism (the interests now running the United States against the interests of the American people) will have them and peace and cheap electricity will not be their primary function.

Obama’s plan to eliminate all nuclear power from countries not under total Rothschild control and then to phase it away from governments completely so that only weapons secretly in the hands of the Money Power’s own secret private (mercenary power above the armed forces of national powers) will exist to rule the earth brooking no interference from any organization of resistance.

When nuclear power is eliminated from the hands of all nationalist governments  — Iran is one of the last –  the Rothschild interests will have a monopoly of true nuclear super-power status  –  a term that today is absurdly applied to the United States which no less a Rothschild asset than is Israel, a nation the Rothschilds’ have won in a financial crap game using  loaded dice.   those of the “approved” Zionist internationalist arsenals and their secret private space-based capability as well.

If you doubt this than you have failed to thing long enough on the power of secret multi-trillionaires who control a monopoly of credit in the world as well as a network of  secret societies that have worked to place their members in every geopolitical strategic point throughout the world – including  China, Russia and India.    Not only does the Jewish money power control secret stockpiles of nuclear weapons (in addition to the secret arsenal of Israel  — likely known only to  Zionist Jews and any others whose absolutel loyal to the Money Power dynasties has been firmly established.

I should mention also here my conclusion that Baruch Plan nuclear domination of the species will also be augmented by already existing systems of weaponized weather modification and the ability to destroy and coercively control through what may be called weaponized private international credit monopoly.

The Obama plan is no more for world peace and the peaceful development of cheap energy for mankind that was the Baruch Plan.  Once the threat of even the potential of non-Jewish-controlled atomic weapons that could threaten Jerusalem and Jewish global supremacy is eliminated, you will see a ruthless arrogance against all critics of Jews that will make all previous genocides of history (both real and imagined) pale in comparison.

Obama is working for the Rothschilds and his plan for eliminating atomic weapons from the hands of representative governments (like the US wishes it still was) and national governments (like Iran)  will render Obama’s masters the Lords of the Earth (which they pretty much are already.)  With this final power over others, Zionism will become not so much a global nobility as a global divinity with the power of Gods over men – the bankers having stolen from general mankind the gift of Prometheus so they can lord over them with impunity.

I wish Iran luck  — but they are in big trouble because they mistakenly believed that Putin was independent  and would back them up.  The truth is Iran has no friends it can count on, even as Iran may be one of the few nations remaining that the American people, if they understood their true best interests, could call their friend.

The Obama’s Baruch Plan is probably going to succeed  — just like Obama’s (formerly Hillary Clinton’s)  Health Care Plan.  I’ve looked at the leaders you keep throwing up for me to get behind  – Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Ralph Nader, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura  and on that basis  I can tell you with confidence – you’re getting the new Baruch Plan and you have earned it.

Holbrooke, Petraeus Take Rebellious Karzai In Hand

Hamid Karzai tours with McChrystal after US feud

* Afghan president calls on Taliban ‘brothers’ to lay down arms
* Holbrooke, Petraeus meet Karzai in Kabul

KUNDUZ/LASHKAR GAH: Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on the Taliban “brothers” to lay down their arms, as he appeared with NATO’s commander in a show of solidarity aimed at putting a quarrel with the West behind him.

In a sign of the volatility of a once-peaceful northern region, plans for Karzai to address German troops in Kunduz on Sunday were called off at the last minute. Residents and German forces said rockets had fallen near the German base there.

And in the south, hundreds of people protested against an Italian charity that operates a hospital where staff have been accused of plotting to assassinate a provincial governor.

Karzai and US General Stanley McChrystal met hundreds of elders in Kunduz, which has seen a surge in Taliban attacks and is expected to become a main battlefront in the coming months.

“I call on the Taliban, the Kunduz Taliban: Brothers! Dears!… Come and have your say, but not by the gun,” Karzai said. “You say, foreigners are here. But as long as you fight, they won’t leave.”

Scores of German troops assembled at their base waiting for Karzai to address them, but an officer announced the stop had been cancelled “due to security reasons and a tight timetable”.

Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Weber said rockets had landed near the base. A villager said he had seen two rockets.

It was the third time Karzai had met elders with McChrystal recently, in what NATO says is part of McChrystal’s strategy of emphasising the Afghan government’s role in military efforts.

In Lashkar Gah, capital of Helmand, hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets chanting “Death to Emergency!”

[SEE:Italy NGO denounces Afghan detentions, says it's targeted because it treats all victims]

Emergency is the name of a Milan-based charity that runs a hospital in the city.

Provincial authorities said on Saturday three Italians had been arrested for plotting to kill the governor of the southern province, bringing arms and explosive vests into the hospital. Emergency has called the allegations “grotesque”. Italy says it is studying the case.

“Those who brought explosives into the hospital to carry out an attack must be arrested and tried for their acts,” said protester Khosrawi Jan.

Meetings: Meanwhile, AFP reported that US envoy Richard Holbrooke and senior general David Petraeus met President Karzai in Kabul at a conference reviewing US civilian and military involvement in Afghanistan. The three men sat together at the start of a two-day conference to discuss what NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said were the “shared challenges and opportunities ahead” in the war-torn country.

The event, involving senior US and Afghan officials, plus key allied partners, comes after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in January unveiled a long-term, non-military plan to stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke, whose office produced the strategy, is Washington’s special representative for both countries while Petraeus oversees US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. agencies


Pakistan/Militants/Mercenaries/United States–The Division of Labor

Dyncorp

The US security firm, Dyncorp, seen with suspicion at home as well as overseas, is set to remain in Pakistan. The firm was also involved in controversy after its shady attempt to enter security business here. The official US line is that Dyncorp is engaged in anti-narcotics operations. Few are convinced. There seems little doubt that counter-insurgency is the real aim. The entire matter is one the Pakistan government needs to take a long, hard look at. It has already tried – and failed – to hide the fact that US security firms are indeed operating on its soil. This does nothing to enhance credibility. What is more, it does do a great deal to bolster the view that Pakistan lacks sovereignty and the ability to make decisions on its own.

It is uncertain what benefits the presence of US firms brings Islamabad. But certainly in terms of image and standing in the eyes of the people they inflict a great deal of harm. Pakistan’s interests may be better served by putting in place an internal security force capable of carrying out operations of various kinds. The assistance of allies in the west can be used for this in terms of offering equipment, support and training. We already have an elaborate security network consisting of a variety of services. There is no reason why their skills cannot be bolstered. In the longer run, this would serve a far more useful purpose than allowing US firms to operate within the country and adding to public perceptions against Washington and its actions in other countries.

The RAND Corporation and – Fixing Islam

[SEE:  Building Moderate Muslim NetworksCivil Democratic Islam]

The RAND Corporation and – Fixing Islam

The global war on terror cannot be won through counterterrorism alone; it also requires convincing the terrorists and their sympathizers that their goals and methods are faulty and failing. But how is this to be done? The policy for creating moderate muslims – aka. RAND Muslims.

March 18th marks the first anniversary of formal release of the Rand Corporation report on Islam, entitled Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies.

The report has two fold agenda: 1. Try to create a version of Islam that suits the post 9/11 western agenda. 2. Creating divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad.

The Rand Report recipe to achieve this objective is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and play one section of the society against another to split the society. In another report released in December 2004, the Rand Corporation elaborated on the second point and recommended playing the two major Muslim sects Sunnis and Shiites against each other to achieve policy objects.

We are not sure what impact the Rand report has on the 1.5 billion Muslims living in independent Muslim countries as well as minorities in many other countries. Its aim is to change the way Muslims think, get Muslims to leave out some parts of their religion not by force, but through influence and education of Western principles, ideas and culture.

However, we can see some reaction in the American Muslim community where the so called progressive or modern Muslims are trying to benefit from the current atmosphere of fear and siege caused by the arbitrary arrests, FBI interviews, racial profiling, surveillance of their mosques, closing down of Islamic charities and constant anti-Islam and anti-Muslim propaganda in the mainstream media.

We are experiencing the re-emergence of Orientalism of the 19th century aimed at forcing the Muslims living in US and elsewhere to abandon the basic tenets of Islam. This neo-Orientalism is coming in the shape of such research documents as the Rand Report which questions the authenticity of Islam’s holy scripture, the Quran. Even a fake version of Quran is now available in print.

The Fake American Quran!

It was distributed in a private school in Kuwait. All this would have been met with fierce resistance by Muslims in the past, however due to many already being turned moderate, their actions are limited due to their faith in religion having being moderated.

At the same time, we see cropping up of some Muslim groups such as Free Muslims Against Terrorism, Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMUNA) and Center for Islamic Pluralism which are not only challenging the basic tenets of Islam but also challenging the established Muslim organizations. They preach Islam which is fully peaceful and does not stand up against Western values or liberalism.

Free Muslims Against Terrorism, established by Kamal Nawash who ran for Virginia State Assembly in November 2003 as a Republican candidate. One can well understand his political ambitions and hidden agenda of his organization. Just one example, how it is working against the American Muslim groups. In January this year the Executive Director of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, wrote an e mail to Enver Masud of an Islamic website, Wisdom Foundation, saying: We are very disappointed in your site and it should be taken downÉ. I will recommend to our extremist watch committee that we place your site on our list of extremist sites or sites that support terrorism. Here is the website address of Wisdom Foundation where one can see what kind of message Enver Masud has: http://www.twf.org

The Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMUNA) was formed on November 15, 2004 by some professed moderates who embrace the simple proposition that “you are a Muslim if you say you are a Muslim — for whatever reason or set of reasons — and that no one is entitled to question or undermine this identity.” Contrary to this, the actual fact is that in Islam, to be a Muslim one has to delcare, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Messenger”. Hence the laws of God comes before anything that exists in this world, even ones own family or spouse.

The PMUNA is now forcing mainstream Muslim organizations to take positions on even non-issues in order to put them at odds with their own community, and if don’t take a position they would be considered as the “bad or extremist” Muslims. Sarah Eltantawi, one of its co-founders is demanding the major Muslim groups and organizations to take position on a non-issue, i.e. if a woman can lead Friday prayers. It is not an uncommon knowledge that the status of woman in Islam is now being used by the West to defame Islam.

“I demand to know where the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) stands on this issue. I demand to know where the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) stands on this issue. And KARAMAH, the American Sufi Muslim Association, Women in Islam, Azizah Magazine, and other groups who speak for Muslims and Muslim women,” Eltantawi asks.

The PMUNA is not alone in working against the major American Muslim organizations. The first goal of Center for Islamic Pluralism established by Stephan Shwartz, a Muslim convert, is the removal of CAIR and ISNA from monopoly status in representing Muslims to the American public because, according to CIP, as long as they retain a major foothold at the highest political level, no progress can be made for moderate American Islam. By the way, Shwartz claims to be a Sufi Muslim and the Rand study recommends promotion of Sufism in Islam for US policy objectives.

The Rand Report is silent on the reasons of discontentment in the Muslim world. The report does not address any of the core issues that are central in developing the pperceptions of the Muslim world like; Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya issues and the exploitative political systems supported by the American or European elites. No reference is made to the West’s support for totalitarian secular Muslim regimes, Israel ‘s endless pogroms against the Palestinians and ethnic cleansing perpetrated against Muslims in Eastern Europe and Chechnya.

A number of recent studies have reaffirmed that the reason for anti-American sentiments in the Muslim masses is because of American policies. Pentagon advisory group, Defense Science Board, in its November 2004 report pointed out that Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.”

To give a helping held in the daunting task of countering the anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world some Ômoderate’ Muslims established the American Muslim Group on Policy Planning (AMGPP) on December 13, 2004. “The AMGPP is willing to play a very active role in helping improve US image and counter the tide of extremism and anti-Americanism in the Muslim World, the AMGPP founder explains. Now one may ask does this group supports Bush administration’s policy objects such as the occupation of Iraq, the war against Afghanistan, torture in Guantanamo Bay, Baghram and Abu Ghraib and support of undemocratic Muslim governments.

In this context, I would like to refer to a report “Understanding Islamism” issued earlier this month by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group: “The failure to address the Palestinian question and, above all, the decision to make war on Iraq and the even more extraordinary mishandling of the post-war situation there have unquestionably motivated and encouraged jihadi activism across the Muslim world.”

According to the report (the quotation of which does not mean its endorsement), Sunni political Islamism, is definitely modernist in most essential respects, favoring non-violent over violent strategies, open to dialogue and debate and interested in democratic ideas. The report adds: that the West can encourage this evolution. But should it choose to do so, it will need to drop or at least moderate its more activist and interventionist impulses where Muslim countries are concerned, display greater respect for their sovereignty, understand their ambition to renegotiate their relations with it over a range of issues and come to terms with and take account of their viewpoints on the most controversial questions in the current relationship, notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq and the modalitie! s of the “war against terrorism” in general.

The report warned that if “moderate” is defined to mean “co-optable”, it can only really refer to groups and tendencies which fail to articulate the frustrations and expectations of the mass of “ordinary decent Muslims”, have little or no purchase on their political reflexes and will prove unable to promote either significant reform in Muslim countries or a substantive modernization of their cultural and ideological outlook. “Rather than reducing the appeal of extremist currents, the patronizing of “moderates” in this sense by Western governments risks reinforcing it, while undermining the modernist tendency in Sunni Islamism to the benefit of fundamentalists and jihadis,” the International Crisis Group report concluded.

Returning to the Rand report, Civil Democratic Islam: partners, resources, strategies, the suggestions of its author, Cheryl Benard, are nothing more than a Machiavellian manifesto that seeks to enforce Western hegemony and cultural imperialism through the policy of “divide and rule.” The type of Islam that Benard espouses is a passive and weak Islam that can be easily penetrated and hence reformulated to suit the West’s agenda. There are now famous moderate Imams that are financed by the West with large followers.

The report may be seen as the latest in a long series of policy papers by the “embedded intellectuals” dedicated to further the military and economic objectives of the West as well as cultural onslaught on the Muslims. RAND predicts that soon there will be two types of muslims, one that follows only the way of Islam which cannot co-exist with Western plans for the world and the other are the moderate Muslims that accepts the world for what it is, minimizing the amount of Muslims that would join militant groups. The West cannot go against 1.5billion Muslims, but if they divide them, it is much easier to conquer.

In a briefing – entitled Taking Saudi Out of Arabia – given on July 10, 2002 to a the Defense Policy Board, former RAND analyst Laurent Murawiec described Saudi Arabia as the “kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” to US interests in the Middle East. He argued that Washington should demand that Saudi Arabia stop supporting “terrorism” or face seizures of its oil fields and its financial assets in the US. Murawiec urged a multi-stage Grand strategy for the Middle East, beginning with Iraq as the tactical pivot, continuing to Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot and finally to Egypt as the prize.

For many Muslims and non-Muslims, these new modern and moderate Muslims are referred by the name of RAND Muslims due to RAND being the strategist for the U.S Government in its challenges with Islam.

The Strategic Logic of Creating “Moderate Muslims”

The moderate Muslim

Afiya Shehrbano

The last decade has been a particularly compelling one for many self-conscious Muslims with regard to the moderate vs radical Islam debate. Through the process, in varying degrees and capacities, a body of self-acclaimed ‘moderate’ scholars, students and vague academics have gained relevance and even, international fame. There are those with iconic status, such as Talal Asad and Mahmood Mamdani, who lend legitimacy to western critical reasoning since they defend Islam against western attacks while located in the West. Then there are small-time careerists such as Irshad Manji and a spectrum of rainbow Muslims who have been well-received by Europe and the US from Muslim countries and are speckled all over new-founded Islamic departments within Western academia and media. Several of these experts and scholars are often rejected (if they’re lucky, persecuted) by their countries of origin – often not by their governments but by obscure political opportunist forces. This tends to make them subversive and academically sexy to western academia.

Often, such scholars have been largely irrelevant and ignored within their societies of origin. This is because in Muslim-majority countries the audiences tend to be less interested in academic debates and more interested in piety, ritual and political delivery of religion. Also, in Muslim societies there is such tremendous competition between religious discourses that unless it’s a sensationalist blasphemous case purported by some opportunist, it is unlikely to deserve monopolistic attention. In other words, as in all disciplines and with all other persuasions of faith, the higher academic debates elude the common people while the political ones gain attention. It is due to the political relevance of Islamic scholars that conflict erupts in Muslim-majority countries, not their academic differences.

On the other hand, the scholarship that Muslim academics produce in the West often attempts to disown radical Islamists or militant expressions of Islamic belief and seeks recognition, even romanticisation, of the subjectivity of the Moderate Muslim. This serves the political purpose of western governments because the current globalised economy and spurts of terrorism demand that politics stay more centrist, blunted, accommodative and ‘safe’ – for capital, not necessarily for people. In this environment, the rhetoric of moderation and tolerance requires that we must purge ourselves of every shade of non-moderate Muslim, ie, both the radical and the secular. This has served as a popular political ploy for leaders, both in Western countries but also in Muslim-majority ones.

What is the relevance of such projects? On the one hand, there is no denying the importance of research, analysis, debate and disagreement on any topic that lends itself to enhancing knowledge and ideas. However, it is when academia begins to engage with the political, that the application of such research comes up for discussion.

In an effort to buffer radical Islamic sentiment, moderate scholarship attempts to build an alternative body of Islamic history and social norms derived through an academic rather than political process. The trouble with sapping out the politics from history is that it becomes rather dull, pedantic and does not lend itself to the current (modern) political context. So moderate scholars are split on this point; some suggest aligning Islamic history to the current context and projected future, while the revivalists tend to reject modernity and western universalism and are drawn to a newly constructed, “culturally appropriate” alternative body of norms and laws for Muslims. This latter proposal preoccupies western governments and societies, where war has become unpopular and economically draining.

It also finds resonance in a new generation of young Muslims who have witnessed the surge of anti-Muslim sentiment expressed by way of irreverent cartoons, banning of veils and minarets in Europe. The careerist Muslim scholars all around the world gained most in this period by using this as evidence of the racism, Islamophobia and anti-liberal humanism that preoccupies western politics and inflicts ‘moral injury’ to Muslims globally. This made it opportune for troubled leaders to construct the idea of an alternative, soft, Sufi Islam. It didn’t matter that this makes absolutely no policy sense and is simply a re-packaged way of suggesting the state remain secular without actually saying so. Politically it has more serious repercussions.

The trouble with such theory is that it gives a cover for intervention under a more subtle guise. Republican-sponsored Islamophobia has given way in the US to a liberal Democrat sentiment, seemingly prone to giving up on defeating radical Islam by aggression. Instead, the current administration seeks to pursue a policy that concedes to appeasing Muslim (male) sentiments by funding projects that enable Muslims to develop themselves through ‘Islamically appropriate’ rights. This would mean not confronting, disrupting or challenging existing patriarchal cultures or social practices or getting into the troubling debate of whether they are religious or cultural or both. What was earlier the hypocritical, sudden feminist concern for Muslim women by the Bush administration has now become an equally self-serving political approach by the Obama regime that wishes to graft a presumed (moderate) Muslim identity on people in Muslim-majority countries. This would suggest that development and relief should be carried out, to use an example, by Islamic Relief rather than Red Cross; or projects should assist Muslim women who can stay at home in veils and do home-based work rather than changing the nature of the market to allow women equal and free access; or, to form ‘peace jirgas’ to resolve intra-Muslim conflict; or fund and arm ‘culturally relevant’ lashkar forces to defend real Muslims against the spurious ones.

It’s one thing to respect religious sentiment but another to disregard the multiplicity of internal cultural dynamics and struggles between competing political identities within Muslim societies. Such a recognition would mean no intervention, including not funding ‘culturally appropriate’ projects nor patronizing any religious persuasion (moderate or not). Instead, maybe the only criteria for foreign assistance should be towards supporting democratic civilian efforts rather than dictatorial and/or military ones.

Interestingly, those who admire western-based Muslim scholars who make careers of promoting moderate Islam, do not accuse such intellectuals of being influenced by western rationality or modernity. Ironically, however, feminists and human rights activists who have spent their lives in their home countries struggling for specific political rights, including equality for women and secular rights in Muslim majority countries, are often dismissed as ‘un-authentic’, ‘westernised’, misguided agents of secularism, even liberal fundamentalists.

In the final analysis, the only purpose moderate Islamists (those who make a career of promoting moderate Islam) have served is to have created a wider wedge between the problematic and often, false binaries of the traditional and modern, appropriate and inappropriate cultural and/or Islamic practices. They serve the political purpose of a feel-good strategic use of religion that accommodates some merger of what are considered, western rationality and eastern conservatism. But ultimately, they are the fence-sitters who have enabled the strategic use of Islam to further pragmatic political goals without substantively making any deep, meaningful change. If anything, moderate Islamists serve as buffers that may seem more acceptable than radical ones but in the process they maintain the worst kind of patriarchal and social conservatism because they endorse slow, gradual and limited progress that does not contest the broader, entrenched and unequal status quo.

The writer is an independent researcher based in Karachi. Email: afiyaszia@yahoo.com

“Pakhtoonkhaw” Name Change Nonsense Claims Five Lives

Abbottabad violence toll rises to five

ABBOTABAD: The number of deaths in the rampant violence in Abbottabad against the name of Khyber Pakhtoonkhaw, rose to five with over 100 injured, Geo News reported Monday.

These people were injured in the firing incidents by the riot police during the protests demonstrations by the workers of Tehreek Sooba Hazara.

Police resorted to aerial firing outside the District Hospital as well.

According to hospital sources, several injured have been brought to the hospitals where state of emergency has been declared, as the protest is raging across the city.

Out of these injured, five critically hurt people lost their lives, the hospital sources said.

The protesters demanding new Hazarah province, set on fire a police mobile at Fawwarah Chawk. Various other vehicles have been torched in the city.

It should be mentioned that the protests broke up this morning against the new name of Khyber Pakhtoonkhaw. The protesters, who are workers of Hazarah Province Movement, took bodies of those who recently were killed in the violence, out from the hospital.

At least three people were killed and 60 others injured during protests today.

Zbig Wants UN/US Troops Between Israelis and Palestinians

To achieve Mideast peace, Obama must make a bold Mideast trip

By Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Solarz

More than three decades ago, Israeli statesman Moshe Dayan, speaking about an Egyptian town that controlled Israel’s only outlet to the Red Sea, declared that he would rather have Sharm el-Sheikh without peace than peace without Sharm el-Sheikh. Had his views prevailed, Israel and Egypt would still be in a state of war. Today, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, with his pronouncements about the eternal and undivided capital of Israel, is conveying an updated version of Dayan’s credo — that he would rather have all of Jerusalem without peace than peace without all of Jerusalem.

This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive peace agreement is in the interest of all parties. It is in the U.S. national interest because the occupation of the West Bank and the enforced isolation of the Gaza Strip increases Muslim resentment toward the United States, making it harder for the Obama administration to pursue its diplomatic and military objectives in the region. Peace is in the interest of Israel; its own defense minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that the absence of a two-state solution is the greatest threat to Israel’s future, greater even than an Iranian bomb. And an agreement is in the interest of the Palestinians, who deserve to live in peace and with the dignity of statehood.

However, a routine unveiling of a U.S. peace proposal,as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough. Anwar Sadat’s courageous journey to Jerusalem three decades ago accomplished just that, paving the way for the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.

Similarly, President Obama should travel to the Knesset in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to call upon both sides to negotiate a final status agreement based on a specific framework for peace. He should do so in the company of Arab leaders and members of the Quartet, the diplomatic grouping of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that is involved in the peace process. A subsequent speech by Obama in Jerusalem’s Old City, addressed to all the people in the region and evocative of hisCairo speech to the Muslim world in June 2009, could be the culminating event in this journey for peace.

Such an effort would play to Obama’s strengths: He personalizes politics and seeks to exploit rhetoric and dramatic settings to shatter impasses, project a compelling vision of the future and infuse confidence in his audience.

The basic outlines of a durable and comprehensive peace plan that Obama could propose are known to all:

First, a solution to the refugee problem involving compensation and resettlement in the Palestinian state but not in Israel. This is a bitter pill for the Palestinians, but Israel cannot be expected to commit political suicide for the sake of peace.

Second, genuine sharing of Jerusalem as the capital of each state, and some international arrangement for the Old City. This is a bitter pill for the Israelis, for it means accepting that the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem will become the capital of Palestine.

Third, a territorial settlement based on the 1967 borders, with mutual and equal adjustments to allow the incorporation of the largest West Bank settlements into Israel.

And fourth, a demilitarized Palestinian state with U.S. or NATO troops along the Jordan River to provide Israel greater security.

Most of these parameters have been endorsed in the Arab peace plan of 2002 and by the Quartet. And the essential elements have also been embraced by Barak and another former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

For the Israelis, who are skeptical about the willingness of the Palestinians and Arabs to make peace with them, such a bold initiative by Obama would provide a dramatic demonstration of the prospects for real peace, making it easier for Israel’s political leadership to make the necessary compromises.

CONTINUED 1 2 Next >

The Accomodationists: Memo to Liberals on the White House Death Warrants

The Accomodationists: Memo to Liberals on the White House Death Warrants

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD

Let us hear no more excuses for Barack Obama. Let us hear no more defenses, no more special pleading, no more extenuations. Let us have no more reciting of the “pressures” he is under, of the “many obstacles” that balk him in his quest to do us good, of the “bad advisors” who are swaying him to unworthy acts against his will. Let us be done at last with all these wretched lies, these complicitous self-deceptions that are facilitating atrocity and tyranny on a monstrous scale.

Barack Obama has ordered the murder of an American citizen, without trial, without due process,without the production of any evidence. All it takes to kill any American citizen in this way is Barack Obama’s signature on a piece of paper, his arbitrary designation of the target as a “suspected terrorist.” In precisely the same way – precisely the same way — Josef Stalin would place a mark by a name in a list of “suspected terrorists” or “counterrevolutionaries,” and the bearer of that name would die. This is the system we have now, the same as the Soviets had then: a leader with the unchallengeable power to kill citizens without due process.

That this power has not been used on the same scale in the American system as in the Stalinist state — yet — does not alter the equivalence of this governing principle. In both cases, the leader signs arbitrary death warrants; the security services carry out the task; and the ‘great and good’ of society accept this draconian power as necessary and right.

This is what you support when you support Barack Obama. It does not matter if you think his opponents in the factional infighting to control a bloodsoaked empire and its war machine are “worse” than he is in some measure. When you support him, when you defend him, when you excuse him, it is arbitrary murder that you are supporting. It is the absolute negation of every single principle of enlightenment and human rights professed by liberals, progressives — indeed, by honorable people of every political stripe — for centuries.

There is nothing particularly remarkable about Obama’s order to kill an American citizen without trial or evidence, of course. George W. Bush claimed the same powers. As I have noted here and elsewhere for many years, our American presidents now claim the right to kill any person on earth whom they arbitrarily designate as an enemy — or even a suspected enemy — of the United States. Barack Obama embraced this power as soon as he took office, ordering a “surge” in the “targeted killings” on “suspected terrorists” in Pakistan. Hundreds and hundreds of innocent human beings have been murdered in these drone attacks; many thousands more have been driven from their homes, and terrorized into lives of mental anguish, their psyches lamed by trauma, upheaval and the ever-present dread of death raining down on them from the skies.

And of course, thousands of innocent people continue to die in the wars of dominion and profiteering that Obama has so eagerly embraced. In Afghanistan, they die directly at the hands of American forces — including secret assassins who raid villages by night, often slaughtering civilians, even those cooperating with the military occupation. As Obama’s hand-picked commander in the region, Stanley McChrystal, has openly admitted: “We have shot an amazing number of people [at checkpoints and on the roads], but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.” And in Iraq — the scene of the abominable, Nazi-like war crime of military aggression whose continuation by Bush’s “surge” was hailed by Obama as “an extraordinary achievement” — innocent people continue to die in droves at the hands of the vicious and violent forces unleashed and empowered by the American invasion and occupation, while they wait to see which brutal “hard man” will seize power over their riven and ruined society.

No, the only remarkable thing about Obama’s direct order to murder his fellow American citizen, Anwar al-Alwaki, is its openness. A few weeks ago, he sent his intelligence chieftain, Dennis Blair, to Congress to openly proclaim the president’s “right” to kill American citizens arbitrarily. Bush had kept this claimed power obscured, letting it out in dribs and drabs of directed leaks, and hints and winks in public statements; but Obama has taken us beyond that, to the open declaration and institutional entrenchment of the principle of death without due process for citizens. This indeed is “change” — with a vengeance.

(And to think that only a few years ago, capital punishment — with its vast and cumbersome legal machinery — was banished in America as too unjust and arbitrary in its application; now a president need not trouble himself with the slightest bit of legal process if he wants to have someone killed. I suppose this too is “progress”: more streamlined, more efficient, quicker, more modern — like wireless broadband. It’s simply there all the time at the president’s pleasure.)

Now, there can be no shuffling, no waffling on the matter. Obama has made it crystal clear for even the most avidly self-duping progressive: He will murder his fellow citizens without trial or evidence if he sees fit. The state can murder whom it pleases. This is the system we have. This is what you support when you support Barack Obama. You cannot escape this logic, this judgment. If you support Obama now, in this, then there is no crime he can commit that you will not support.

And thus you become one of those people that we all used to puzzle over, the accomodationists to brutal tyranny: “How did all those people go along with the Nazis? Why wasn’t there more opposition to Stalin? How could they countenance all those obvious abominations? What kind of people were they?”

Now you know. They were you. You are them.

**
NOTE 1: I should make it clear that I do not think that it is somehow more heinous for the American government to target and kill its own citizens, as opposed to killing foreigners by the thousands, which it has done, on a bipartisan basis, for many a year. I am merely laying out the case in this way so that American “progressives” — almost of all whom are deeply marinated in their own brand of American exceptionalism — can see that even by the standards of this exceptionalism, which puts American lives and ‘values’ above all else, Barack Obama is acting — undeniably — in a criminal, tyrannical manner.

NOTE 2: While I was writing this piece, I got the welcome news that Arthur Silber was back, after a long hiatus due to his chronic ill health. And, as usual, his insights cut straight to the heart of the matter. As I noted here the other day, Silber was one of the very few writers who saw through the shining cloud that surrounded the Obama campaign to the corroded core within. He also noted the greatest danger of an Obama presidency: that it would confirm, entrench, expand — and normalize — the worst aspects of the American imperium, precisely because the system’s crimes and atrocities would now be presented in a more pleasing package, with all “progressive” opposition to them completely disarmed by partisan adherence to their standard-bearer.

Ironically, one of Silber’s most incisive pieces on this subject was provoked by what many people — and almost all “progressives” — still consider Obama’s finest moment during the campaign: his speech calling for a “national dialogue on race” — part of a particularly brutal effort to knife his long-time friend, mentor and pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, deeply and repeatedly in the back.

Go read the new piece now, and follow the links, which provide chilling chapter and verse to underscore the insights. But here is brief excerpt, one of the conclusions that Silber draws today from that early speech:

If one truly and comprehensively understood Obama’s speech on race — the unending, deadly lies on which it was based, and the terrible consequences to which those lies have led and the devastation they will continue to cause — that speech told you everything you needed to know about Obama.

That is not hyperbole, not if you understood all of that: it told you everything. .. And what has already occurred during the Obama presidency is very far from all or the worst of the destruction that can reasonably be expected to transpire over the coming years.

UPDATE: David Swanson at Counterpunch nails the situation well: “Murder is the new torture,” indeed. As Swanson notes, now that torture — always with us, but previously shrouded — has been mainstreamed, acceptance of outright murder is the logical next step. And as Swanson observes, it is actually a much more efficient tool of imperial policy:

President Obama has ordered the murder of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Like the innocent but tortured Abu Zubayda (innocent at least of any of the crimes he was accused of), Awlaki is now the mastermind terrorist of the universe. And once he’s dead, who’s to say he wasn’t? Who can demand a trail or access to documents? He’ll be dead. See the beauty of it?

If the top mastermind is in Yemen, what the hell are we doing building a quagmire in Afghanistan? Don’t ask. But notice this: we have dramatically increased the use of missile strikes to assassinate in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we have increased the use of murderous night-time raids to such an extent that we now kill more civilians in that way than we do with drones. They’re the “wrong people,” or neighbors who came to help, or family members clinging to loved ones. Sometimes they’re young students with their hands tied behind their backs. Accidents will happen. But no U.S. officials’ future book tours are going to be interrupted by protesters, since there’s no torture involved. Civilization is on the march!

Italian Care-Givers Arrested Because They Help Everyone In Need

Italy NGO denounces Afghan detentions, says it’s targeted because it treats all victims

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

11emergency26645.jpg
April 11, 2010

ROME – The head of Italian aid group Emergency denounced the detentions of three of its hospital workers in Afghanistan and said Sunday the group was targeted because the hospital treats Taliban fighters along with civilians.

Emergency founder Gino Strada said 40 per cent of the people treated at his hospital in Helmand province are children, a sign that NATO forces are harming civilians in the effort to dislodge the Taliban.

“It becomes difficult (for international forces) to say that dangerous terrorists were bombed,” he told Sky TG24. “Children were bombed.”

Strada charged that a “preventive war” had been launched by Afghan and international forces “to remove an uncomfortable witness before launching a military offensive in the region.”

Three Italian Emergency workers were detained Saturday as part of an investigation into an alleged plot to kill the governor of Helmand province, Afghan officials said. They were among nine people held after suicide bomb vests, hand grenades, pistols and explosives were discovered in the storeroom of an Emergency hospital in Helmand’s capital, Lashkar Gah.

Emergency has denied involvement.

Emergency has had a tense relationship with local authorities in violence-wracked Helmand, due in part to its policy of treating all patients. Emergency has provided health services in Afghanistan since 1999

:: Article nr. 64997 sent on 12-apr-2010 02:57 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=64997

Link: www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/italy-ngo-denounces-afghan-detentio
ns-says-its-targeted-because-it-treats-all-victims-90567584.html

Netanyahu Worried–World Sees Through Hasbara Bullshit

Netanyahu Worried about ‘World Silence on Iran’

Readers Number : 182

12/04/2010 Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu chided the international community for what he called “the relative silence in the face of Iranian threats” to destroy Israel, and the Islamic regime’s “race towards nuclear weapons.”
“Iran’s leaders are rushing to develop nuclear weapons as they freely announce their desire to destroy Israel,” Netanyahu said Sunday. “But in the face of these calls to erase the Jewish State from the face of the earth time and time again, we see at best mild protests, and these too seem to be fading,” he added.
“We don’t hear the forceful protests that are required, we don’t hear strong denouncement, or the angry voice,” he said. “But as usual, there are those who direct their criticisms against us, against Israel.” Netanyahu was speaking as he marked the so called Holocaust.

Speaking before the prime minister, President Shimon Peres also addressed the Iranian threat, stressing that the world could not display apathy.
“It is our right and duty to demand of the nations of the world not to repeat their indifference, which has cost millions of human lives, including theirs. The United Nations must be attentive to the threats of annihilation coming from one of its members, against another member state,” Peres said.

Israel, which is not a  signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and believed to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with more than 200 nuclear warheads, will not take part in the Nuclear Security Conference due Monday in the US, fearing pressure to come clean on its ambiguous nuclear program.

Bakiyev Calls for UN Intervention

“We will resist,” – K. Bakiyev in Kyrgyzstan calls UN peacekeepers

20:40 11.04.2010

Bakiyev suggested the introduction of UN peacekeepers in Kyrgyzstan

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev suggested the introduction of the country, UN peacekeeping forces to prevent the recurrence of the riots. This Bakiyev said in an interview with RIA Novosti. According to the president, police and army can not maintain order in the event of renewed unrest.

Bakiyev also called for an international commission to investigate the events of 7 April, when the president of Kyrgyzstan was actually removed from power. “Today’s result, which today goes, I do not believe him, it is one-sided, it still hangs on me” – said the president. However, he expressed his readiness to bear responsibility if the international commission declares him guilty in the riots.

In an interview with Bakiyev, being with his supporters in the south of Kyrgyzstan, has warned the provisional government from trying to force his capture. “There are not five or ten thousand more people will. Are they on them will all shoot? So try to talk to me from a position of strength, I do not recommend it. If they do try, we will resist,” – president promised.

In Kyrgyzstan has opened a criminal case to close associates and relatives of Bakiyev, including two of his sons and brother. Himself Bakiev of Kyrgyzstan’s new authorities refused to guarantee the security, if he does not relinquish presidential powers. At the official talks with Bakiyev, interim government is not going. However, the deputy chairman of the interim government Tekebayev admitted that negotiations on its own initiative, may have started some of the opposition leaders.

According to the Interfax news agency, Tekebayev also said that a deprivation of Bakiyev’s presidential term is not necessary to convene parliament . According to Tekebayev, the provisional government enjoys popular support, which is “the basis for legitimacy.” “We are beginning to recognize in the world, and they condemn the actions of Bakiev,” – added Tekebayev.

Source - Lenta.Ru

Jewish Bankers Focus of Kyrgyz Revolution

[SEE: Kyrgyz protester: “The Jews are Kaput”]

The new Kyrgyz government lives under the banner of “dirty Jew”

alt
The new Government of Kyrgyzstan the second day of operating under the slogan, actually calling for the expulsion of the republic “dirty Jews”. It is unlikely that this will help legitimize “revolutionaries” in the eyes of the West.
A poster on the knob of the Government House in Bishkek

Kyrgyz news agency 24.kg published a photo essay “Morning of April 9, 2010. Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek. … No comment.” These photos can be clearly seen that the gates of Government House Republic still hangs a poster of anti-Semitic: “The dirty Jew such as Maxim and has no place in Kyrgyzstan”refers to his son deposed President Kurmanbek Bakiyev).

(

This poster hung yesterday over the entire day in the same – at the gates of Government House. As the portal IzRus from Bishkek, several witnesses, members of the new government, including Prime Minister Roza Otunbayeva , considered pro-Western politician, saw this poster. They walked past him at the entrance to the square Ala-Too “in front of the White House.

Thus, the new leadership has announced that it assumes power in the republic in their hands in the evening of April 7, the second day of operation under the banner of “dirty Jews. It is unlikely that this will contribute to its legitimacy in the eyes of the West.

Israeli/Jewish Connection to Uzbek Opposition Forces, Just Like Kyrgyzstan

During Karimov’s daughter: the relationship with businessmen in Israel goes Uzbek opposition

Representatives of the American branch of the Birdamlik “establish relationships with communities of Bukhara Jews in the U.S. and Israel. With their help, they expect to get access to the Knesset and the major Israeli tycoons.
Emblem of motion Birdamlik
In the next few weeks are going to Israel secretly living in the U.S. visit by representatives of the Uzbek opposition movement Birdamlik. They plan to meet with several young businessmen and community leaders from among Bukharan Jews who immigrated in the 90′s from Samarkand, Kokand and Andijan.

It’s – first contact the representatives of “Birdamlik” with the Israelis. Both parties are interested to advertise communicate with each other. As a mediator between them stands one of the activists of the community of Bukhara Jews in New York, who has relatives in Israel.

Representatives of Birdamlik “emphasize that the Bukharan Jews, who do not care about the fate of Uzbekistan makes sense” for the future “to communicate not only with officials of the republic and the forces representing the “democratic alternative” regime of Islam Karimov. This takes into account dissatisfaction in some quarters in the Bukharan community the U.S. and Israel, due to the fact that after his departure from Uzbekistan in June 2008, the Chabad Rabbi David Gurevich religious Jewish life in this country and not come back on track. ” American activists Birdamlik “confident that this was the result of the purposeful activity of the official authorities to curb religious freedoms in Uzbekistan.

In the future, representatives of this movement are hoping with the help of new friends in Israel, to establish contact with the members of the Knesset, as well as prominent businessmen and philanthropists of the number of Bukharan Jews.

It is significant that despite continued stagnation in the relations Tashkent Jerusalem and Israel to show interest, as representatives of the Uzbek opposition abroad, and the official establishment. For example, in January this year, the daughter of Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyayev preferred to give birth in a Tel Aviv hospital, “Ihilov.” A few weeks ago, accompanied by Ambassador Oybek Eshonova , Israel secretly visited Lola Karimova – the youngest daughter of Uzbek President (by the way, April 4 Eshonov met with Israel’s ambassador in Tashkent, Newman , particularly affecting the question of non-publicity of this information).

HELP IzRus
Bakhodir Choriyev (photo: Ferghana.ru)

Movement Birdamlik ” (“Solidarity”) started its activities in Uzbekistan in October 2004 According to figures announced in late last year on the website Ferghana.ru leader of this movement Bakhodir Choriyev, it is officially registered in the U.S., Norway, Sweden, and operates in Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
The movement aims to shift power in Uzbekistan, non-violent methods. In this republic, it has no legal status. The first congress of the movement was actually held in an irregular situation, but in the territory of Uzbekistan in November 2009
, former Uzbek farmer Bakhodir Choriyev in 2004 was forced to leave Uzbekistan and emigrated to the U.S., where he received political asylum. In October 2009, he returned to his homeland, “to conduct political activities within the law, but in December, was forced to return to the United States.

Algerians and Moroccans in El Qaida training camps in Israel

Algerians and Moroccans in El Qaida training camps in Israel

ennahar

imageAccording to sources well informed on the case and the activities of El Qaeda, Israel would have created about a year, training camps on its territory for elements from Arab countries.

  • The military training and intelligence are provided in preparation for possible terrorist operations against the interests of foreign countries in the Arab countries who are regarded by Israel as a threat to its security and its strategic interests, including the Maghreb Arab.

    According to our sources, the camps include Arabs from Algeria, Morocco and Yemen who came in, with false passports, from Europe and carrying Jewish names. These were recruited by the Mossad in the European capitals to activate within the ‘El Qaeda’ organization after being selected by the intelligence services in Europe. These people are generally wanted for belonging to terrorist groups.

    The secret training camps have relations with the sleeping cells of El Qaida in Europe, where their elements are recruited for possible terrorist operations in Arab countries in coordination with the branches of the organization including the armed terrorist groups of the Sahara. This proves what Ennahar had previously published on the military attaché at the Israeli embassy in Mauritania, who had prepared a secret report on security activities of armed men in the Sahara regions. The latter maintained secret relations with the rebel movements in Mali and Niger.

    The Mossad had relations with the branches of El Qaeda and the operations committed against foreign interests, mainly American, and in connection with the events in Iraq and the Middle East.

    According to these sources, the Mossad might even try to use Algerian Harraga in Italy and recruit them in these training camps across the logistics network of seafarers on the axis Sardinia Naples in search of elements to send secretly in Israel, for the purpose of committing operations against foreign interests during the summer; operations to be awarded to El Qaeda.

    This new stage in the activities of the El Qaeda organization is the subject of the discourse of El Dhawahiri in an attempt to revive the various branches after the stranglehold exercised on the organization by the European intelligence and painful strikes made by the security services and the army in particular in the Arab Maghreb and in Algeria.

    Ennahar / Mohamed Ben Kemoukh

US Sponsoring of Anti-American Jihadist Forces Is Catalyst for Instability

“Thus, during the Cold War, the primary objective of the US was to contain the Soviet Union; that is, disrupt the ascent of the USSR so that it could not interrupt the ascent of the US as a global economic powerhouse succeeding the West European colonial powers. A major instrument of this policy was to shield Western Europe from Soviet hegemony.
This was achieved brilliantly under a US umbrella – the NATO Alliance – but without preventing the recovery of Western Europe from transforming into the inherently anti-American regulatory nightmare which the EU has become. As well, starting the early-1970s, the US bribed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) into disengaging from the Soviet Union in return for economic modernization and empowerment, but without influencing or preventing the ensuing Chinese chauvinistic awakening which now dominates China’s global posture and behavior.

On a smaller scale, at one time or another when it suited its short-term purpose, the US allied itself with, and lavishly sponsored, vehemently anti-American jihadist forces, be they in Afghanistan, the Northern Caucasus, or the former Yugoslavia. Similarly, Washington’s preoccupation with the here-and-now presently determines the US policies and activities in the GBSB, thus making the US a catalyst for instability.”

Europe’s Latest Tinder Box and Global Mega Trends – The EU’s Failure (Part 1)

The Greater Black Sea Basin (GBSB) – the region between the middle of the Adriatic
Sea in the west and the middle of the Caspian Sea in the east, between the Russian landmass in the north and the Turkish-Persian landmass in the south – is fast becoming Europe’s latest tinderbox.

Although traditional geographic textbooks identify the borderline between Europe and Asia as the line stretching westwards along the water-crest of the Caucasus Mountains and then arching southwards through the center of the Turkish Straits and then hugging the Greek littoral westwards, the legacy of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union put the entire GBSB within the confines of Europe’s geopolitics and geoeconomics.  (read HERE)

The AfPak War: Failures of Success

The AfPak War: Failures of Success

Soldier preparing an unmanned aerial vehicle, courtesy of US Army/flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Preparing an unmanned aerial vehicle for an upcoming flight in Afghanistan

The Obama administration places drone attacks at the heart of its military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But its enemy too is capable of making deadly use of evolving technology, writes Paul Rogers for openDemocracy.

By Paul Rogers for openDemocracy.net


A number of news reports in March-April 2010 claims that the accelerated use of armed-drones is having a hugely disruptive effect on the al-Qaida movement. Most of these reports, which appear to emanate from CIA sources, identify western Pakistan as a key area where drones are damaging the Pakistani Taliban and other insurgent elements (see Joby Warrick & Peter Finn, “CIA director says secret attacks in Pakistan have hobbled al-Qaeda”, Washington Post, 18 March 2010).

It is understandable that United States agencies (and some analysts) seek to put a positive emphasis on developments in the “AfPak” war, especially so soon after the announcement of Barack Obama’s military “surge” strategy in Afghanistan (see “Afghanistan: victory talk, regional tide”, 25 March 2010). But the narrative of drone “success” needs to be examined with care, and put in the context of wider events that suggest the existence of other serious dynamics in the evolving war.

The drone effect

Indeed, a number of recent advances in drone technology mean that the capabilities of the most modern types of drone are hugely greater now even than the mid-2000s. At that time, the standard US armed drone was the Predator; the follow-on Reaper system carries fifteen times the Predator’s weapons-load at three times the speed (see “Drone wars”, 16 April 2009). The Reaper’s wingspan is about the same as a Boeing 737 passenger-jet; when in “endurance mode” it can be fitted with two drop-tanks that enable it to carry a 300kg weapon-load while staying airborne for forty-two hours.

Drones such as the Reaper are normally “flown” from bases in the United States where personnel work in shifts, a procedure that avoids fatigue while ensuring psychological and moral “distance” from the impact of the attacks they are responsible for. An operator in Nevada, for example, can kill a group of presumed insurgents (and quite possibly civilians) in a village in western Pakistan 11,000 miles kilometres away, clock-off shortly afterwards, then take the kids for a burger and a spell at the local bowling-alley before spending the evening chatting over the day’s events in a bar.

The increased use of drones has been a notable feature of the Barack Obama administration’s policy. In this the US president has continued and extended a trend that has lasted for more than a decade – for since the late 1990s, US forces have deployed drones and cruise-missiles in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan (see “The hi-tech battlefield“, 27 September 2007).

The administration has sought recently to clarify the legal basis for the attacks. The state-department legal advisor (and openDemocracy contributor) Harold Koh finds: “The US is in armed conflict with al-Qaeda as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9/11 and may use force consistent with its right to self-defence under international law …[Individuals] who are part of such armed groups are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law” (see Jim Lobe, “Legality of Drone Strikes Still in Question” TerraViva/IPS, 5 April 2010).

The justification has led to a number of legal concerns being raised by US human-rights groups. The wider issue here is the matter of precedent. A current controversy in Israel surrounds the house-arrest of the young Israeli journalist Anat Kam for making claims that Israeli special forces have carried out “targeted killings” (that is, assassinations) of what are described as “non-combatant Palestinian political opponents” (see Mel Frykberg, “Israel Gags News on Extra-Judicial Killings”,TerraViva/IPS, 5 April 2010). If such claims are established in court in the future, Israel may feel able to justify such activities by referring to similar US actions.

The US policy raises further questions:

- If drones are used legitimately in (for example) Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, what other countries – might the US feel justified in targeting?

- If Somali paramilitaries operate in Kenya, and Yemeni militants move east and north into Oman or Saudi Arabia – can they be attacked?

- When India seeks the planners of the devastating Mumbai operation of 26-29 November 2008, or Russia pursues those behind the Moscow metro bombings of 29 March 2010 which killed thirty-nine people – would they be justified in launching assaults on neighbouring states?

Whatever the answers to these questions, the Obama administration believes that the use of drones in western Pakistan has been very effective and must continue; indeed, the drone is now a favoured weapon (and could even be offered to Pakistan itself in coming months). Some local sources report occasional multiple strikes in a single day, and at other times strikes every second day; there are also near round-the-clock surveillance operations, which “(force) militants to abandon satellite phones and large gatherings in favour of communicating by courier and moving stealthily in small groups” (see Jane Perlez & Pir Zubair Shah, “U.S. drones wreak havoc on militants in Pakistan”, New York Times, 5 April 2010).

It is certain that the use of drones has had a major impact in the AfPak war. But past experience in this kind of conflict is that irregular forces respond sooner or later with major changes in their own tactics. The wide availability of technologies means that insurgents and paramilitary groups are likely to develop their own drones, and probably deploy them against military and civilian targets. In only a very few years, skilled groups will acquire drone capabilities stretching over thousands of kilometres (see “Hizbollah’s warning flight”, 4 May 2005).

The double blowback

The current escalation of violence in the Afghan-Pakistan conflicts on the ground also reveals the limits of aerial warfare. Two events on 5 April 2010 indicate the trend. A vicious attack on a political rally in the Lower Dir district of northwest Pakistan killed at least forty-three people and injured dozens more; and a multiple assault by five paramilitaries using a truck-bomb, machine-guns and rocket-launchers on the United States consulate in Peshawar killed three guards and wounded many civilians. The consulate and its staff survived, but the coordinated nature of the operation and the ability of irregular forces to get as close as they did to the consulate indicate their sophisticated capabilities (see Ismail Khan & Sabrina Tavernise, “U.S. Consulate in Pakistan Attacked by Militants”, New York Times, 5 April 2010).

More broadly, this phase of the AfPak war is marked by two immediately significant developments. The first is that in the area around Marjah (in central Helmandprovince), where US marines have ostensibly taken control as part of Operation Moshtarak, it is proving exceptionally difficult to separate the Taliban from everyone else in the local community. The process may initially have appeared to work, but a combination of threats, beatings and intimidation by Taliban paramilitaries has greatly limited its effect (see “The Afghan whirlwind”, 26 February 2010).

The marines’s attempts to win the confidence and support of local residents have included compensating local residents for damage done to lives and property. The result is that Taliban militants too have succeeded in getting compensation. An Afghan national police commander in Marjah reports being told by informants that at least thirty Taliban had been awarded payment either for deaths of relatives or damage to property during the February 2010 assault (see Richard A Oppel Jr, “In Marja, Taliban are rolling back the U.S. tide”, New York Times, 3 April 2010).

Colonel Ghulam Sakhi makes the revealing comment: “You shake hands with them, but you don’t know they are Taliban. They have the same clothes and the same style. And they are using the money against the marines. They are buying IEDs and buying ammunition, everything.”

The second development is that paramilitaries in Afghanistan, even before Barack Obama’s troop-surge was fully underway, had already increased the number of attacks using deadlyimprovised-explosive devices (see “Number of IED attacks is rising in Afghanistan, says head of JIEDDO”, Jane’s International Defence Review, 26 February 2010). Moreover, the insurgents have also developed a greater emphasis on carefully David Pugliese, “Afghan Insurgents Move To Multi-Bomb Attacks”, Defense News, 15 March 2010).

The use of IEDs is so widespread in this environment that US special forces have expanded the number of night-raids against households suspected of being involved in the insurgency (see Gareth Porter, “Night raids belie McChrystal’s new image”, Asia Times, 2 April 2010). This, from a US military perspective, is both understandable and necessary; but it runs counter to previous experience across the country where forced entries of households have resulted in intense anti-Americanism.

It is also very likely to lead to further civilian deaths at a time when the United States military is already embroiled in a bitter controversy over the killing of three women in a special-forces raid on 12 February 2010. American sources originally reported that the three women (two of whom were pregnant) had been killed by local people prior to the raid but later admitted that they had been shot during it (see “NATO Admits Killing Afghan Women In Bungled Raid”, Agence France-Presse, 5 April 2010). A Nato official also acknowledged that there had been evidence-tampering at the scene, including the removal of bullets; other officials admitted that a local police-chief and a district-prosecutor were killed in another raid that went badly wrong (see Richard A Oppel Jr & Aboul Waheed Wafa, “Afghan Investigators Say U.S. Troops Tried to Cover Up Evidence in Botched Raid”, Washington Post, 6 April 2010).

The Marjah lesson

The counterproductive effects of the drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan include a dispersal of al-Qaida and Taliban elements across the region. In the short term this means disruption of their activities, but in the longer term – as with drone technologies – they will adapt and hit back. The events in and around Marjah, where Operation Moshtarak has pressed hard on militants without being able to defeat them, is the latest example of an enduring pattern.

In November 2001, the termination of the Taliban regime in Kabul had the effect of disassembling and fragmenting both the Taliban militias and al-Qaida operatives. Both survived, regrouped and returned – and in the process learned from their earlier exposure to attack on a regime with a base-city (the Taliban) or a movement located mainly in large training-camps (al-Qaida).

Almost a decade on, another dispersal is underway. The United States forces arepreparing for a further assault on the insurgent stronghold of Kandahar, even as Washington’s relationship with the Hamid Karzai regime in Kabul is marked by deepdistrust on both sides. The CIA and other agencies may trumpet the benefits of its deadly technologies. But the experiences of Marjah, Peshawar and of constant drone-attacks in the early months of 2010 suggests that the AfPak war – which now also means Barack Obama’s – is about to become even more difficult and costly.


Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001.

The other nuclear summit and the role of Asian regional players

The other nuclear summit and the role of Asian regional players

AFGHANISTAN-IRAN/

Leaders of more than 40 countries are gathering in Washington for a summit beginning on Monday to control the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran for obvious reasons is not invited, but it has announced a conference of its own soon after the Washington meeting. It’s called ‘Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None, and among those who have agreed to attend  are India, Pakistan and China.

While the level of representation to the Teheran meeting is not at the same level as Washington for all three countries, the fact that they have chosen to attend seems to be a signal to the Obama administration just as it is trying to isolate Iran for its suspected nuclear weapons programme. India’s presence in particular has raised the question if it is starting to re-assess ties with Tehran that have in recent years been allowed to slip in the pursuit of a strategic relationship with America.

As The Hindu newspaper noted the Tehran conference is a “red rag” to Washington and it has been  quietly discouraging countries to attend.  For New Delhi to agree to send its ambassador to the meeting can only be a signal that it is looking to expand its diplomatic space in the region as differences emerge with Washington over its Afghan strategy weighted towards Pakistan, Indian experts say.New Delhi really should be re-energising links with Tehran  if it wants to maintain its reach in Afghanistan, they say. Without a geographically contiguous border and a hostile Pakistan in the middle, Iran remains the only corridor to Afghanistan.

India must join a natural gas pipeline that the Iranians have been pushing for  that will run through Pakistan., argues journalist Atul Arneja  in widely flagged piece also in The Hindu. For years India has resisted Iranian overtures in large part  because of reservations over the pipeline passing through Pakistan, but also because of upsetting Washington. Arneja argues that  India can involve China and Russia too in the project  to increase its sense of comfort over the pipeline traversing through Pakistan.

So much for India, what about Pakistan ? Why is it going to Tehran to attend the summit at a time  when  ties with Washiugton are on a more even footing than can be said even a few months ago ? Pakistan has actually gone ahead and signed the natural gas pipeline deal with Iran and the foreign office said  this weekend Islamabad will act according to its national interests.  “US diktat on Iran pipeline not to be entertained”,  read a headline  in The Dawnreferring to the U.S. State Department’s remarks that it wasn’t the right time to be conducting such a transaction with Iran. Despite the improved ties,  Pakistan has its own issueswith Washington, nuclear energy one of them. Denied a civilian nuclear deal of the kind that the United States has sealed with India,. the Pakistanis are essentially saying theywill explore all options to meet their energy needs.

Shouldn’t be much of a surprise that China is attending the Tehran summit though. It has resisted tougher sanctions against Iran and until almost the final week before the Washington conference  it wasn’t certain if President  Hu Jintao would attend owing to tensions over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Tibet and the yuan .

Boris’s Blunder

Serbia’s Srebrenica Resolution

Late in the evening on March 30, while the attention of most Serbians was on a major basketball game, the Serbian parliament passed a resolution condemning and apologizing for the “Srebrenica massacre.” Nearly three months in the works, the resolution was officially supposed to contribute to truth and reconciliation in the Balkans, transform the Serbian society, and bring Serbia closer to the EU. Not surprisingly, it has accomplished none of those goals. Nor did it satisfy the Bosnian Muslims, who maintain that the events in that eastern Bosnian town in July 1995 amounted to genocide.

That claim, however, has been held up to harsh scrutiny by analysts and researchers in the past three months. For the first time in years, there was a debate in Serbia on what happened in Srebrenica that summer almost 15 years ago. Unfortunately for the government, all evidence and analysis indicate that the official story about a “genocide” against unarmed civilians was at best an exaggeration, and at worst a complete fabrication with malicious intent.

What was intended to be the final victory of Empire over Serbia – an admission of genocide and acceptance of collective responsibility, 11 years after the Kosovo War and four years since the ICJ ruled that Serbia had nothing to do with any atrocities in Bosnia – thus ended up becoming the greatest challenge to Empire’s quisling regime in almost a decade.

Ambition and Reality

The whole saga began in early January, when President Boris Tadic made a surprising announcement that the Serbian parliament would pass a resolution condemning the “genocide” in Srebrenica. He first claimed it was an obligation stemming from the 2007 ICJ verdict clearing Serbia of any and all responsibility for atrocities that happened in Bosnia. Then he argued it was a required step for Serbia’s EU accession. Then he tried to present it as a brilliant political move, claiming the moral high ground over Serbia’s neighbors. Lastly, Tadic said that it would be a part of the process to transform Serbian society in general. It all sounded more like excuses and rationalizations than actual arguments, as if Tadic were merely doing someone else’s bidding and the real authors of the resolution were elsewhere.

That was confirmed in mid-March, when EU’s envoy for Serbia Jelko Kacin blurted out in an interview that the resolution was devised elsewhere, back in December 2009, and presented to Tadic and the Serbian lawmakers as a done deal. Meanwhile, the Turkish newspaper Zaman has claimed that Turkey’s FM Ahmet Davutoglu was also privy to the resolution’s text, long before the Serbian public.

For weeks, officials from Tadic’s party as well as their coalition partners confidently asserted that the resolution would condemn “genocide,” and that it would receive widespread support. In reality, public opposition to the resolution was overwhelming, “genocide” was dropped, and the government barely mustered 127 members of the 250-member legislature to approve the resolution late in the evening, while everyone in the country was distracted by a basketball game between Belgrade’s Partizan and Maccabi of Haifa.

Blowback

Tadic’s expectations, if they were his own or genuine to begin with, failed to materialize. The Muslims rejected the resolution as insufficient, since it did not admit to “genocide.” It also failed to satisfy the EU, which obviously expected a more convincing exercise in submission. No matter how much the Serbian government prostrates itself, it is never enough.

As for the vaunted “transformation” of Serbian society, that sort of happened – though not in the way the government intended. The resolution has served to mobilize thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations in Serbia and abroad, to oppose its passage. Meanwhile, diligent researchers have pored over the official evidence of “genocide” at the ICTY and elsewhere, and found it decidedly lacking. Ironically, before the resolution was proposed, much of Serbia subscribed to themainstream myth about Srebrenica, only doubting the details. After three months of debate, analysis and argument, that myth has been exploded and exposed.

Blaming the… Gays?

Srebrenica is a classic case of facts being trumped by perception management. Manipulation with that Bosnian town ranges from the absurd to the ridiculous. For example, on March 18, during a Senate hearing on the proposed lifting of the ban on gays in the American military, Marine Gen. John Sheehan actually argued that the Srebrenica massacre took place because some of the Dutch peacekeepers stationed there were homosexuals.

In reality, sexual preferences of the Dutch soldiers never figured into the equation. They could have handled the Bosnian Serbs, but had no way of dealing with an entiredivision of the Bosnian Muslim army garrisoning the “demilitarized” area. As a mere company of Serb troops rolled into Srebrenica, thousands of Bosnian Muslim troops fled – dumping their women, children, and the elderly at the Dutch base in Potocari. Those non-combatants were then evacuated to Muslim territory, alive and unharmed, by the Bosnian Serb troops.

Calling this “genocide,” therefore, makes about as much sense as accusing homosexuals among the Dutch peacekeepers of being somehow responsible for it.

The Last Myth

The Bosnian War was a nasty, bloody, and brutal affair, fought over land and ethnic rights. It ended up being mythologized in the West and among Islamic militants, for reasons entirely unrelated to any Bosnian issues whatsoever. With most of the shocking stories from the war long since exposed as propaganda (at the expense of actual survivors of real atrocities, it merits mention), the last remaining myth about Bosnia is that of the Srebrenica “genocide.” This myth has been used to silence criticsof Empire’s Bosnia policy, but also to justify subsequent Imperial murder sprees, from Kosovo to Kandahar.

Bosnian Muslim nationalists have also seized on Srebrenica to claim the status of righteous victims, going so far as claiming equivalence with the Jewish holocaust of WWII. And though they label everyone who dares question their claims a “genocide denier,” it is precisely their attempt to equate this mythic “genocide” with the actual legacy of the Nazis that merits the label.

Al Awlaki’s Crime? He Does Not Believe That “Al Qaida” Exists–Neither Do I.

[The man was a highly respected Islamic scholar until rounded-up in Yemen, at American insistence, tortured and imprisoned for 18 months.  His greatest crime seems to be that he "does not believe that Al Qaida exists, instead that 9/11 is the work of Mossad. Following 9/11, he wrote on IslamOnline.net that Mossad might have been responsible and that the FBI 'went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default'."

SEE: This is the man that Obama has authorized the CIA to kill.]

In need of a fair trial

Al Awlaki’s case once again exposes America’s myopic stance on fighting terror

  • By Habiba Hamid, Special to Gulf News

Anwar Al Awlaki

I’m trying to figure out the difference between Ann Coulter and Anwar Al Awlaki. There doesn’t seem to be much. Other than, of course, that one gets the biggest audience in America for hate-speech against American (Muslim) citizens and the other has just been placed on a CIA hit list with White House approval. No prizes for guessing which one is which.

Al Awlaki is an American and until recently, was regarded highly as a Muslim scholar, born in New Mexico of Yemeni parentage. He served as an Imam in California, Virginia and at George Washington University.

In September 2006, while studying fiqh, a Yemeni raid orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 abducted and imprisoned him under harsh conditions. He was released 18 months later, for lack of evidence, never having faced trial. But on his release, the remarkable happened:he was exiled to Yemen.

Originally much loved, his rapid descent into hate-speech was noted with dismay. “They put him in jail for 18 months and I detected a change after he got out of prison, he began to get away from the mainstream,” Al Awlaki’s father said.

Omar Ahmad Sulaiman, an Imam in New Orleans and a member of the Islamic Circle of North America’s Sharia Council among others, firmly repudiated his call for jihad: “Most American Muslims simply dismissed his new lectures and writings as tainted by his frustration with what had happened to him in prison.”

Now, however, they believe that his is “the same call of the kharijites that has been repeated so many times, that feasts on the frustration and uncontrolled emotions of vulnerable youth that do not have the foundation or knowledge to recognise its illegitimacy”.

Yet, pause for a moment from the hysteria surrounding this man’s life. He’s clearly a hate-monger. But a terrorist? Al Awlaki denied that he encouraged the Nigerian bomber and called for the US to release correspondence between him and the Fort Hood shooter in the days prior to the attack.

Remarkably, Al Awlaki does not believe that Al Qaida exists, instead that 9/11 is the work of Mossad. Following 9/11, he wrote on IslamOnline.net that Mossad might have been responsible and that the FBI “went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default”.

Diabolical hyperbole

It’s the diabolical self-referencing hyperbole which leads to his imminent demise. Consider that President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, calls him “clearly a part of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula”. About the Nigerian airplane bomber, the Yemeni Defence Minister, Rashad Al Alimi, notes: “If he went to Shabwa, for sure he would have met Anwar Al Awlaki.” Later, this was beefed up to: “There is no doubt that he met and had contacts with Al Qaida elements in Shabwa, … perhaps with Al Awlaki”. Witness the morph into official narrative. A man who believes Al Qaida does not exist is suddenly a part of Al Qaida. And the person responsible for defending Yemen invites pre-emptive drone attacks by alluding to Al Qaida operatives in his own country.

There’s no doubt his hate speech is unconscionable. Just like Coulter’s.

Yet, why not try the man, charge and fine him for hate speech? Arrest him for incitement to violence? Or would that in fact not lead us to the origins of his hatred; the abrogation of the social contract by the government, his immoral imprisonment without trial, his torture and his exile? Obama please answer me: Since when did the US exile and sanction the assassination of its own citizens?

I believe that the latter is our generation’s Sayyed Qutb. Both were adored by ordinary Muslims simply for lectures on the Quran and certainly not for their reactionary and impolitic hate-speech which lacks theological rigour.

Both stand accused of actually masterminding terrorism. Yet, Qutb was hanged after torture at the hands of fellow Muslims, while Al Awlaki endured state terrorism.

Let him face trial, not the unmanned bullet of a drone hunting him down in a beleaguered country, alone and without the benefit of the rule of law. This is, after all, what distinguishes America from Yemen and what distinguishes Al Alwaki’s rhetoric from that of a democracy’s.

Habiba Hamid is an independent writer based in Dubai.

IDF Order Authorizes Mass Deportations of Thousands From West Bank

IDF bid to expel West Bank Palestinians is a step too far

By Haaretz Editorial
A new military order will take effect this week, enabling the army to deport tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank and prosecute them on infiltration charges, which carry long prison terms. The order, uncovered by Amira Hass in Haaretz yesterday, bears the signature of Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni in his previous capacity as commander of the Israel Defense Forces in Judea and Samaria.

The order’s vague language will allow army officers to exploit it arbitrarily to carry out mass expulsions, in accordance with military orders which were issued under unclear circumstances. The first candidates for expulsion will be people whose ID cards bear addresses in the Gaza Strip, including children born in the West Bank and Palestinians living in the West Bank who have lost their residency status for various reasons.

This would be a grave and dangerous move, unprecedented during the Israeli occupation. For years, Israel has used a heavy hand against the Palestinian population registry, trampling basic human rights such as the freedom to move one’s residence within the occupied territories. Many Palestinians’ lives have thus been made very difficult because they have been cut off from their previous places of residence without being able to return or legally register their new addresses.

Advertisement

The right of all Palestinians to choose where to live in the West Bank or Gaza marks a very low threshold for defining their human rights. Israel, which justifiably prevents Palestinians from returning to where they lived before 1948 and does not offer them fair compensation for their property (while enabling Jews to recover property from the same period, as has happened in Sheikh Jarrah), cannot expel Palestinians from the occupied territories on the basis of dubious bureaucratic claims.

Implementing this new military order is not only likely to spark a new conflagration in the territories, it is liable to give the world clear-cut proof that Israel’s aim is a mass deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank. While all Jews can settle wherever they wish, in Israel or in the territories, Israel is trying to deprive the Palestinians of even the minimal right to choose where to live in the West Bank or Gaza. The prime minister and defense minister should immediately shelve this military order before the IDF feels free to begin carrying out expulsions.

Clerically Institutionalized Pedophilia

Clerically Institutionalized Pedophilia:

Another Nail In Civilization’s Coffin

By Carolyn Baker

11 April, 2010
Carolynbaker.net

Western civilization has taught us many things including how not to look at the larger picture of any issue and keep separate, myriad dots that beg to be connected. Mainstream and even alternative media is replete with myopic statements like “Should the pope resign? Should there be a formal investigation by the Vatican of the global epidemic of priest abuse of children? What did Benedict know and when did he know it?”

A fundamental lack of historical perspective and an inability to place the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy in the context of the inexorable collapse of industrial civilization leaves us asking meaningless and absurd questions. Therefore, if we are going to make sense of this latest crime against humanity perpetrated by organized religion, it is crucial that we explore both these issues.

Historical and Current Perspectives

First, even a cursory understanding of church history provides numerous clues regarding the inevitable outcome of the initial agenda of early church fathers. Of course the word fathers signals the birth of patriarchal religion in the West which even beyond male domination is synonymous with a way of life based on power and control. Shortly after the birth of Christianity and as the Christian church became an organized system in the Western world, the top priority in its agenda was to exterminate paganism and its indigenous roots and influence. The supreme irony, of course, is that Christianity had deep roots in paganism and could not have congealed into a viable religion without it.

The significance of the disavowal of paganism cannot be overemphasized. The word “pagan” originally meant, country dweller or rustic and implied that the pagan had an intimate relationship with the earth. It was that relationship, more than anything else about paganism, that made it so repugnant to the custodians of official church dogma. Moreover, the earth and the female gender were clearly associated in the minds of early church fathers with irrationality, defilement, chaos, and evil. St. Tertullian wrote to women: “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? With the sentence of god on this sex of your lives in this age, the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway. You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law. You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant to attack. You destroyed so easily god’s image, man. On account of your desertion even the son of man had to die.”

Researchers of the early Christian Gnostic sect, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their book Jesus and The Lost Goddess, point out that in the early stages of Christianity, a protracted struggle between literal and symbolic interpretation of sacred texts continued until the literal interpretation triumphed in roughly the 5th century. In the earliest stages of Christianity, many pagan converts to the religion believed in a Christian goddess, and indeed this teaching became an integral part of Gnosticism. As the church became increasingly male dominated, church bishops “vigorously suppressed the idea that there was a Christian goddess.” Ironically, in 431 at Ephesus, which had previously been the site for worship of the pagan goddess, a church council met and “bestowed the title of the ousted goddess upon Mary, the mother of Jesus.” The larger significance of this action is that it “put an end to Gnostic ideas of equality between the sexes.” (44)

The Gnostic Christian sect struggled valiantly with the official church hierarchy to modify the church’s perceptions of women and nature, but ultimately, the church prevailed, and Gnosticism was declared heresy. The subsequent history of church leadership reveals a burgeoning pattern of male hierarchy distancing itself from the earth, from the feminine, and from matters of the heart, thoroughly preoccupied with intellect and domination. Medieval scholar, Lynn White comments on the Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis:

While many of the world’s mythologies provide stories of creation, Green-Roman mythology was singularly incoherent in this respect. Like Aristotle, the intellectuals of the ancient West denied that the visible world had had a beginning. Indeed, the idea of a beginning was impossible in the framework of their cyclical notion of time. In sharp contrast, Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as non-repetitive and linear but also a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all-powerful God had created light and darkness, the heavenly bodies, the earth and all its plants, animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man’s benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes. And, although man’s body is made of clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God’s image.

White’s analysis of the Christian doctrine of dominion over the earth illumines how it institutionalized an attitude of disconnection from nature and the fundamental philosophical underpinning of Western civilization, namely that humans were superior to other species and therefore had the inherent right to dominate them. Notable exceptions to this pattern were mystics such as St. Francis of Assisi, Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich who wrote and taught prolifically about their own and humanity’s relationship with nature. Christian mystics always held a decidedly feminine perspective and were marginalized accordingly.

Two thousand years of church history reveals a progression from a small group of diverse Jewish and pagan adherents of disparate spiritual paths to an increasingly standardized hierarchy which exists today as both a government and one of the major religious organizations on the planet.

Enter the second perspective necessary for making sense of epidemic pedophilia in the institution: an understanding of large systems and their role in the collapse of industrial civilization. At every turn, organized religion throughout the world has supported corporate oligarchies and their pillaging of resources and people. “Infinite growth” has been the hallmark not only of industry but of proselytizing religious hierarchies-a model which is inherently unsustainable. Moreover, adherence to the model of infinite growth guarantees its ultimate dissolution. Add to this more than two millennia of suppression of women and nature, and you have a deadly recipe for implosion.

Organized Religion’s Monstrous Shadow

Like rape, pedophilia is not about sex, but rather about power. For this reason, it would not matter if priests were married. In fact, most sexual abuse of children is committed by heterosexual males. Thus, attempting to treat symptoms of institutionalized pedophilia by allowing priests to marry or by accusing abusing priests of homosexuality is pointless because it does not address the systemic nature of these criminal acts against children which has little to do with marital status or sexual orientation.

Incidentally, I have not failed to notice that millions of children are sexually abused in their homes in every country and that in some countries, the sexual abuse and mutilation of children is ubiquitous and virtually accepted as an integral part of the culture. In those places too, parents and pillars of the community often proclaim their impeccable morality and righteousness.

What is more, whenever any individual, community, or organization declares itself a healing agent in service to the world, it must be aware of its shadow self, which if not consciously addressed will erupt in behavior unimaginably antithetical to its explicit mission. The shadow is simply all parts of self that we have disowned as the “not me” which takes up residence in the unconscious mind, i.e., We are the church; we are moral, upright, and here to save your soul from sin and eternal damnation. Our intentions and behavior are above reproach.

In a remarkable anthology on the shadow entitled Meeting The Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature, the Buddhist-oriented Benedictine monk, David Stendl-Rast, in an article on “The Shadow In Christianity” notes that when we “try to live up to the standards of a God that is purely light…we can’t handle the darkness within us. And because we can’t handle it, we suppress it.” (132) Indeed, Catholicism is not the only religion or spiritual path where the shadow exists. It abides in every person, group, and institution. Rather than something to be feared, however, it is something to be worked with, understood, and its energy utilized in service of living consciously and compassionately in the world.

Connecting All The Dots

Every institution in industrial civilization is in the process of collapsing. One has only to observe education, healthcare, finance, media, transportation, government, and yes, religion, to observe institutions, not merely in a state of crisis, but in a profound process of dissolution. Moreover, the collapse of one institution does not occur in isolation but is rather connected with the collapse of all the others. And each institution is inextricably linked to the “Three E’s” of industrial civilization’s demise: energy, environment, and econmics.

Religion is but one institution, and the Catholic faith is but one religion in a web of faiths rapidly unraveling as “something greater” in the psyche of human beings attempts to make sense of things like financial collapse [TRANSLATION: the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world]; increasing healthcare costs [TRANSLATION: money-driven medicine devoid of one shred of compassion]; public school closings [TRANSLATION: the abject failure of standardized testing and the triumph of the public school to prison pipeline]; energy depletion [TRANSLATION: the permanent end of cheap and abundant fossil fuels]; climate change [TRANSLATION: the abject destruction of the ecosystem]; and the war on terror [TRANSLATION: infinite global conflicts sparked by industrial civilization's desperate attempts to secure the last remaining drops of oil on earth.]

The problem with the Catholic Church is not the pope or pedophile priests; the problem with the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church-one of the most toxic systems in human history which has unflinchingly colluded with corporate capitalism and the worst of humanity’s repressive regimes for gargantuan profit and the standardization of power and domination as a way of life.

As organized religion continues to unravel, human beings who have been seduced by it will be tempted to abandon their innate tendency to attempt to make sense of disappointment and loss. In the worst case scenario, they will become bitter, enraged, violent, depressed, and maybe even suicidal. Others may opt for a “new atheism” which while currently quite fashionable is not producing much more than what journalist Madeline Bunting calls “a lot of sore heads.” In her most recent piece she asks “;Are The New Atheists Doing Anything To Stop The Ills of Religion?” Bunting argues that the new atheism has sold a great deal of books but that in fact, “The paradox of New Atheism is that in its bid to make religion unacceptable, it has contributed to making it a subject that is considered worth talking about again.” Perhaps that is because as she also notes, “When someone is killed in a car accident, western rationality is good at analyzing how the brakes failed and the road curved, but has nothing to say about why, on that particular day, the brakes failed when it was you in the car: the sequence of random events that kill. This search for meaning is part of what drives the religious spirit.”

It is precisely this search for meaning in the face of the collapse of civilization that I have attempted to address in depth in my 2009 book Sacred Demise: Walking The Spiritual Path of Industrial Civilization’s Collapse. One of the opportunities collapse may offer is a return to the application of indigenous, earth-based wisdom disavowed two thousand years ago by patriarchal Christian theologians. In my opinion, this knowledge must sculpt the new paradigm that begs to be created by and for the earth community in which neither children, animals, soil, seas, forests, mountains, and rivers are exploited.

What is needed is not more priests or more religions. One Catholic priest who fully grasped his intimate connection with the earth chose to call himself not a theologian, but a geologian. That remarkable human being was none other than the late Thomas Berry who lamented that “Unfortunately, Western religious traditions have been so occupied with redemptive healing of a flawed world that they tend to ignore creation as it is experienced in our times.”

In 1999 Berry published his landmark book The Great Work-the great work, of course, being the lifelong process of understanding and knowing ourselves in relation to the earth. In The Great Work, Berry quotes a devout Catholic educator, Maria Montessori who believed that “only when the child is able to identify its own center with the center of the universe does education really begin.” Institutionalized pedophilia is the inevitable, systemic outcome of an entity which glorifies masculinity, disavows the feminine, repudiates nature and the human body, revels in the profits of global corporate capitalism, and makes domination and exploitation its implicit canon. I celebrate the collapse of organized religions, but I mourn the casualties of that collapse-the countless innocent children who never had the opportunity to identify their own center with the center of the universe.

Georgian shootings were a Saakashvili, Kaczynski set up?

Georgian shootings were a Saakashvili, Kaczynski set up?

Evidence mounts that the visit of presidents of Poland and Georgia to a disputed area on the South Ossetia border on Sunday, was designed to increase the tension in the region.

Georgians, not Russians were behind the now infamous shooting incident.

In fact, the Saakashvili presidency has been accused, even by one of its own members, of planning attacks on sepratist regions in August this year. This crisis was not the immediate cause of a “Russian” invasion anywhere, let alone South Ossetia: it was the result of a petulant Sakkashvili, easily provoked by Moscow.

The shooting incident on Sunday, when president of Georgia and Poland, went to the de facto border between Georgia and South Ossetia – and an area that was once in Tbilisi’s hands before the August war – appears, according to the Polish security service, BOR, to have been a set up by Presidents Saakashvili and his Polish friend. A report for the government says that Polish security forces became separated from the presidents’ car. When the first of three bursts of automatic fire began, Georgian commanders at the scene did not flinch, did not react. It was almost as if they were expecting the gunfire. Saakashvili was reported by BOR to have been smiling!

The accusation by even Polish officials that this was a set up by the Georgian side – and not the Russians as Kaczynski and Saakashvili have both alleged – does two things. It hands over to the Kremlin a propaganda victory – people will begin to believe Putin much more than they will a Kaczynski or a Saakashvili, or a Bush; it also gives the excuse to Moscow to ratchet up the bullyboy tactics in the Caucuses, and weakens any principled stand against them.

Many are coming to the conclusion that Poland’s president’s obsession with the region is helping make the place more unstable. If rule one of foreign policy is: ’Do no harm’, then Kaczynski is failing the test.

We should not join President Kaczynski or anyone else – like George W. Bush – in trying to make out that Saakashvili is some kind of super-patriot, fighting a lone battle against the evil empire of Russia. The reality is that both politicians – from Georgia and Poland – are more interested in a “crusade” against the Kremlin, for reasons best known to themselves. The rest of us should not be joining in on this vanity project.

Nation falls silent as grieving Poles mark the passing of Lech Kaczynski

Nation falls silent as grieving Poles mark the passing of Lech Kaczynski

(Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Mourners light candles under a giant cross at Pilsudski Square, Warsaw, in memory of Lech Kaczynski

Roger Boyes, Warsaw

Lech Kaczynski, the late President of Poland, returned home yesterday to a country struck dumb with grief and confusion.

The air crash that wiped out the head of state, the chief of the general staff, the chairman of the security services, the central bank governor and Solidarity heroes has left Poland reeling, unsteady and uncertain.

As the red and white Polish flag on the President’s casket flapped in the wind, the honour guard at Warsaw airport struck up the National Anthem. The president’s ashen-faced twin brother Jaroslaw, the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, and parliamentarians fortunate enough not to have been on the doomed presidential plane, moved their lips to the words of the anthem: Poland has yet to perish/As long as we still live/That which foreign force has seized/We at sabre point shall retrieve.

Then, the casket made its way in a hearse through the streets of the silent capital. Tens of thousands lined the route, rushing in front of the police escort to place carnations on the road, snatching off their hats, dropping to their knees.

The only noise: the revving of hundreds of civilian motorbike riders, waving the national flag, who had decided spontaneously to follow the cortege, like seagulls in the wake of a ferryboat.

“It’s a group trauma,” said a catering entrepreneur, Kaja Burakiewicz, “we’re still struggling to understand.”

The crash occurred on Saturday morning at Smolensk in western Russia. The President had taken with him the cream of Polish society to pay tribute at the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacres: 22,000 officers and intellectuals, slaughtered in 1940, by Soviet NKVD troops.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, had previously paid his respects to the victims – but had stopped short of an apology – in a ceremony on Wednesday with his Polish counterpart, Mr Tusk. But President Kaczynski, distrusted and actively disliked by Russian politicians, had not been invited. The pugnacious 60-year-old was determined to have his own, second memorial service – and died in the attempt.

Some relatives of the Katyn murder victims had already made their way on special trains to the old forest clearings where the officers had been shot in the back of the neck, one by one. Early yesterday they waited for the VIPs to arrive. There were rows upon rows of empty seats.

The crowd grew restless. A priest reported that the presidential plane had “technical difficulties” and the ceremony would be delayed. Slowly it dawned on the families – and on all Poles watching the live TV broadcast at home – that something terrible had happened.

A tragedy in a place already weighted by tragedy.

“The place is cursed,” said ex-President Aleksander Kwasniewski. Throughout the weekend, the Poles piece together the circumstances of the disaster that is throwing up so many awkward questions about the future of the country.

Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, threatens to block Nato offensive

Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, threatens to block Nato offensive

Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrives at 10 Downing Street

Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrives at 10 Downing Street

Stephen Grey in Kandahar

The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has cast doubt over Nato’s planned summer offensive against the Taliban in the southern province of Kandahar, as more than 10,000 American troops pour in for the fight.

Karzai threatened to delay or even cancel the operation — one of the biggest of the nine-year war — after being confronted in Kandahar by elders who said it would bring strife, not security, to his home province.

Visiting last week to rally support for the offensive, the president was instead overwhelmed by a barrage of complaints about corruption and misrule. As he was heckled at a shura of 1,500 tribal leaders and elders, he appeared to offer them a veto over military action. “Are you happy or unhappy for the operation to be carried out?” he asked.

The elders shouted back: “We are not happy.”

“Then until the time you say you are happy, the operation will not happen,” Karzai replied.

General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander, who was sitting behind him, looked distinctly apprehensive. The remarks have compounded US anger and bewilderment with Karzai, who has already accused the United States of rigging last year’s presidential elections and even threatened to switch sides to join the Taliban.

For President Barack Obama, the battle to drive the Taliban from their heartland is seen as the main test of his “surge” strategy to send 30,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan. The United States calls Kandahar the “centre of gravity” of the war in Afghanistan.

Senior commanders and diplomats emphasise, however, that success would depend on action by Karzai to eliminate corruption and set up a form of local government.

Nato’s plans envisage political manoeuvres, from a purge of provincial leadership to the creation of precinct councils, to tackle the roots of the Taliban rebellion. The aim is to wrest power from so-called warlords — including the president’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai.

With the Afghan president increasingly regarded as “gone rogue”, hopes of such action were fading. One US official said after the shura that Karzai had proved neither a reliable ally nor popular with his own people: “He can rail against the West all he likes — no one wants him to look like a foreign puppet. The trouble is, his erratic speeches are matched by erratic actions. That’s why this tension is undermining the offensive.”

The latest row began when Karzai decried “huge fraud” in the elections, saying it was “done by the foreigners”. After telephoning Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, the next day to clarify his remarks, Karzai escalated the attack. Witnesses said he told MPs at a private meeting: “If I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban.” His spokesman hastily denied it.

In Kandahar he persisted, deflecting complaints against himself with further criticism of outsiders and saying he had now “rescued myself from foreigners’ orders”.

Few elders at the shura seemed impressed. They pressed for a purge of his officials. “If we speak out and if we tell you the truth of what’s happening here, we will not last the night,” said one elder. “We will be assassinated. Everyone is scared.”

A white-bearded frail man stood up, leaning on a walking stick, and said: “The other day people came with guns and told me to shut my shop and go to my house. I phoned the police. They said, ‘It’s none of our business and we don’t care’.”

Sitting just off the stage at the meeting was the president’s brother. Ahmed Wali Karzai is the head of Kandahar provincial council and is alleged by US officials to profit from drug trafficking and organised crime. The president is reported to have refused US requests to remove him from his post.

On the streets of the city this weekend there appeared to be little or no support for a Nato push in the province. “Look what happened in Marjah,” said one local government official in Kandahar, referring to the last US offensive launched in February in central Helmand province.

“The US controls the place by day but the Taliban control it by night. What is the point? If you help the government, you will be murdered.”

At a popular coffee shop in the city centre, Khaled, a medical student from Kabul, said the influence of the Taliban was creeping back into the area.

“A Nato offensive here will not help,” he added.

“We know what they do. They arrive in great numbers and provide security for two weeks and then they go and the insecurity returns.”

General Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, had warned Clinton about Karzai’s character last year. He said that McChrystal’s proposals for a a troop surge should not be supported unless the president changed.

“President Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner,” he wrote in a telegram that was later leaked.