Afghan Groups Arming-Up for Next Civil War

Kidnapping and arms smuggling in Afghanistan 

—Musa Khan Jalalzai

Some Afghan experts are of the opinion that several ethnic and sectarian groups of the country distribute sophisticated weapons among their members for the future civil war after the NATO and US withdrawal in 2014. Local militias and political groups have started arming young unemployed men in Badakhshan, Wakhan and among groups settled near China’s border

“Don’t go to Afghanistan if you want to save the money.” These are the words quoted from a recently filed news story of my journalist friend returned from Afghanistan. Over the last three decades of civil war, Afghanistan largely depended on the black market economy, criminal trade, and smuggling of opium, heroin and arms. Drug and arms trafficking business and jihadism left devastating effects on the lives of common Afghans. The recent large-scale transfer of arms to Afghanistan from Central Asia and its distribution across the country is a bigger threat to the stability of the country as these arms may be used in a future civil war against ethnic rivals. From northern Afghanistan, these weapons are further transferred to Pakistan via the Hindu Kush mountainous regions.

In fact, kidnapping for ransom and smuggling of weapons from Central Asia has been a profitable business in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001. Some underground groups who enjoy the protection of the Afghan police, intelligence officials and private militias across the country, pick up men, women, children, journalists and businessmen one by one either for the purposes of human trafficking, the organs business or for ransom. Everybody knows who they are and which political or religious group they represent.

Last year, a US embassy report in Kabul revealed that Afghan boys, girls, men and women are trafficked within the country for forced prostitution and forced labour in brick kilns, carpet-making factories and domestic service. In 2010, over 200 men and women were kidnapped by unknown criminals with the help of corrupt Afghan police who have already been involved in the illegal businesses of weapons and ‘China white’ heroin.

Kidnapping and the illegal drug business are the most powerful industries in today’s Afghanistan. Kidnappings are common in many parts of Afghanistan. When the US invaded the country, kidnappings were rare and mostly politically motivated. The average ransom amount was a hefty sum for many Afghans, $ 10,000. In 2011, the rate reached up to $ 200,000. Consequently, these criminals became an influential land mafia, promoted the kidnapping business, and used their purchased empty houses and plazas as temporary prisons for their victims. Hardcore criminal elements from different political and sectarian groups, hired by the land mafia to protect their embezzled estates, have started settling down in urban areas and polluted the local scenario with their criminal activities. They enjoy readymade facilities to carry out their illegal business. These religious and political mafia groups are making millions of dollars from the illicit drug trade, security charges on convoys, extortion and financial contributions from charities and wealthy individuals from various Arab states. The international aspect of this business is that some states do not want the involvement of their political and geographical rival states in the reconstruction of Afghanistan; they are supporting the kidnapping and killing of workers of some reconstruction companies.

The business of kidnapping for ransom supports terrorist Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghan and Pakistani criminal groups involved in kidnapping for ransom in Afghanistan, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan are financially aiding the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban networks. In Punjab, one of my police officer friends told me in a telephonic conversation that some 100 to 150 people are being kidnapped in the province every month. “We have reports that groups involved in the ransom business have links with the Taliban of Waziristan and Afghanistan-based militants,” he told me. These underground and open groups have spawned an epidemic of ransom kidnappings.

In the Afghan capital, hundreds of people are being kidnapped every year. These criminals who enjoy the support of the Taliban, killed many captives when demands for ransom went unmet. We still remember the brutal killing of a British woman kidnapped for ransom in 2011, because most criminal groups’ kidnappings end either in the payment of a ransom or the death of the hostage. The money these groups retrieve from this business goes into the pockets of four categories of people. The first group is the Taliban who help them in kidnapping locals and foreigners, the second is the corrupt officials of the Afghan police, the third is elements in the Afghan intelligence and the fourth group that receive its share is the private warlords’ militias.

Another formidable aspect of the business is that as these groups belong to sectarian and political parties of Afghanistan, they spend a lot of money on the purchase of weapons from across Central Asia and Iran. Some Afghan experts are of the opinion that several ethnic and sectarian groups of the country distribute sophisticated weapons among their members for the future civil war after the NATO and US withdrawal in 2014. Local militias and political groups have started arming young unemployed men in Badakhshan, Wakhan and among groups settled near China’s border. Ethnic thugs in northern provinces have been terrorising opponents, extorting money, demanding sanctuary, and kidnapping for ransom. Some military experts understand that the weapons they purchase go into the hands of Pakistani Taliban groups in Waziristan and the FATA regions. Improvised explosive devices smuggled into Pakistan have become an effective weapon against civilians in the country.

Heartbreaking reports recently revealed the illegal weapons business in northern Afghanistan. Local criminals, police and intelligence officials are jointly running the profitable business of sophisticated weapons in Kunduz, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat, Takhar, Balkh, Samangan, Parwan and Baghlan provinces. A police commander from Afghanistan told me that smugglers use the Darqad Pass between Tajikistan and the northern Afghan province of Takhar for weapons smuggling. Military experts understand that this is a crucial stage for preparation of forces for a future civil war in the country.

A source in the Afghan interior ministry told me that police vehicles are being used in narcotics and weapons smuggling across the country. Military relations among Afghan and Tajik and Uzbek Islamist insurgents from Central Asia are friendly. Afghanistan shares porous borders with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which are used by some subversive elements to smuggle weapons into the country. These elements will be helpful in igniting the fire of civil war in Afghanistan.

The writer is the author of Britain’s National Security Challenges and Punjabi Taliban. He can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com

Cuba Still Fighting American Destabilization Efforts After All These Years

Informatics War: Destabilizing Technology

By Néstor Núñez/ ACN.It is not new for the Cuban people that Washington is now carrying out an informatics war with sophisticated technologies aimed at destabilizing the Revolution in addition to the already existent economic, financial and commercial blockade against the island. Years ago different means were used to undermine the Revolution, like invisible ink or transmitting stations disguised in a variety of things or anything that could be brought in to the island without being detected. Other things also included were introducing explosives to the island for terrorist activities, like the case of the bombs placed in Cuban tourism installations which were organized by terrorist Luis Posada Carriles using mercenaries mainly from Central America. On the other hand, during a recent television series on Cuban TV on aggressive activities organized in Washington against Cuba, the program demonstrated US attempts to introduce sophisticated communication devices capable of outwitting all detection mechanisms dedicated to transmitting information outside the island and the reception of messages, instructions and subversive materials from abroad. As usual, technology in the hands of the aggressors to the North preferably point to the most repulsive objectives. According to recent reports from the New York Times, the “US government is going ahead with the construction of what is called ghost networks “to protect and conceal ways of communication for the so called dissidents abroad. The test project has apparently been applied in Afghanistan at a cost of 50 million dollars aimed at establishing independent cell telephone networks capable of not being detected by the current systems of control and security. According to the same source, up until the end of the year, the Barack Obama will add another 70 million dollars to similar projects, disguised under the old concept of adding “new efforts” in “promoting freedom of expression and democracy” worldwide. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the efforts lies in giving security and stability to communication traffic to the so called dissident groups and achieve expanding their messages and criteria. Imperialism’s objectives have not changed which is to dominate the world, beyond figures, smiles and the color of the skin of the high ranking dignitaries.

‘Army to leave Fata when tribals take responsibility’

 

General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani shaking hand with a cadet of the Cadet College Wana.-APP

LADDAH: Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said on Thursday that army would be withdrawn from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) when tribal people were able to take up their responsibilities.

Addressing separate jirgas of Ahmadzai Wazir and Mehsud tribes in Wana and Chegmalai areas of South Waziristan, he said the army had played an important role in eradicating militancy and restoring peace in the region.

Pakistan has deployed over 100,000 regular and paramilitary troops in Fata to flush out the Taliban from the area.

The army chief blamed foreign elements for the situation in Fata. He said: “The army will leave the area when tribesmen are capable of fulfilling their responsibilities.”

Under the Frontier Crimes Regulations, tribal people have certain responsibilities, including protection of roads, government installations and officials and keep their areas clear of anti-state and anti-social elements.

He inaugurated the Wana Cadet College and performed ground-breaking ceremony of Wana-Angoor Adda Road. He said the road would help to boost trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Kayani asks Wazirs to keep close eye on terrorists

[Daily Times is still keeping up appearances, in being the only news service that claims a source connection to (possibly dead) Wazir leader, Mullah Nazir (SEE:  Did US Special Forces Kill Mullah Nazir?).]

* COAS tells leading Ahmedzai Wazir elders military had not come to Tribal Areas for operations only but also for development

Staff Report 

PESHAWAR: Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani told leading Ahmedzai Wazir elders on Thursday that military had not come to Tribal Areas for operations against local and foreign terrorists alone.

“We have not come for fighting (the terrorists) alone. We have come here to help develop your areas,” Kayani told a jirga of Ahmedzai Wazir tribes in Wana, headquarters of South Waziristan. A Wazir elder who participated in the jirga said that Gen Kayani told the elders that whatever development promises the army had made they were fulfilled.

“Last year, I promised Cadet College and today we have made it operational. I promised electricity and it will come soon. We promised Wana-Angoor Adda expressway and its construction is on,” Kayani was quoted as saying during the jirga. Kayani visited South Waziristan headquarters especially for inauguration of Wana Cadet College – a reward for the Ahmedzai Wazir tribes’ unflinching support against the foreign terrorists.

A journalist, who attended the jirga and was unwilling to be named, said the body language of Kayani did not reflect that post-Abbottabad situation had brought him under any pressure. “Wazir tribes stood by the army,” the army chief told the tribal elders who pledged to keep their areas off to “unwanted elements,” a reference to terrorists.

“We will support peace and help the government achieve this goal,” the tribal elders responded to the military chief who said the Wazirs should keep close eye on terrorists as it “is against the dignity and honour” of the Wazir tribes. Kayani said he was leaving for Kotkai, once stronghold of banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, to inaugurate Kotkai-Jandola road construction after this jirga, reassuring the Ahmedzai Wazir tribes that Mehsud areas were totally taken back from the Mehsud terrorists.

General Officer Commanding of South Waziristan Maj Gen Rizwan Akhter warned the Ahmedzai Wazir elders that their areas were used in plotting terrorist attacks across the country. “Whatever happens in the country one way or the other is linked to Wana. We want the local tribes to keep their areas guarded” against elements damaging peace. “The government is bound by the 2007 peace agreement. But its violations are talking place from (Wazir) side. Even if my brother provides shelter to a foreigner (terrorist) he would be my enemy,” he told Wednesday visiting media personnel from Islamabad having been flown in a day before for Kayani’s visit coverage.

Meanwhile, the Ahmedzai Wazir elders won Taliban leader Mullah Nazir’s support to the 2007 peace deal reached between them after flushing out the Uzbek terrorists from their areas in popular uprising. “We have finally been able to meet (Mullah) Nazir and convinced him that he should continue to stand by the peace deal which stipulates that no foreign terrorist would be allowed to stay in Ahmedzai Wazir areas,” tribal sources close with knowledge of the meeting between the ‘peace committee’ members and the Taliban leader told Daily Times by phone from Wana.

The sources said the meeting by the peace committee “cooled down the temper” of Mullah Nazir who was “upset” by several drone strikes and military-led search-and-cordon operations in Wazir areas since last month. “We made Mullah Nazir understand Pakistan’s limitations to stop the drone strikes and the military’s search operation by reminding him that 2007 peace deal allows no space to foreign terrorists on Wazir soil,” the sources quoted peace committee members as telling the Taliban leader.

Karzai and Hekmatyar to Run the North?

Karzai surrounding himself with narrow circle of advisers urging a shift from US to Iran 

By Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai is increasingly isolated and has surrounded himself with an inner circle of advisers who are urging him to move closer to Iran and Pakistan as the U.S. draws down its role in Afghanistan, several friends and aides tell The Associated Press.

Their advice is echoed in Karzai’s anti-West rhetoric, which has heightened both in his public speeches and in private. He met recently with Iran’s defense minister, and constantly cautions against trusting the U.S. to have Afghanistan’s best interests at heart.

Several of Karzai’s close friends and advisers now speak of a president whose doors have closed to all but one narrow faction and who refuses to listen to dissenting opinions. They say people allowed to see the president are vetted by an inner circle of religious conservatives who belong to a nonviolent wing of Hizb-i-Islami, a radical Islamic group whose relentless attacks on American soldiers forced the U.S. to withdraw from bases in northeastern Kunar and Nuristan provinces.

The group’s leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was once an American ally but has since been declared a terrorist by the United States.

Although Hekmatyar shares the Taliban’s goal of an Islamic regime, his men have also fought Taliban militants over the past year, and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar is said to despise him. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, Hekmatyar spent five years in exile in Iran.

Inside Afghanistan’s presidential palace, Iran, Pakistan and China are most often referred to as reliable allies, according to Karzai’s friends and advisers. Last year, Karzai openly acknowledged taking “bags” of money from Iran to finance his administration.

“A lot of Afghans are very concerned about the direction the country is taking, moving away from the international community … toward a more conservative practice in which the religious people and warlords have more power,” Human Rights of Afghanistan Commissioner Nader Nadery said.

“Consistently his aides are pushing him toward Iran and Pakistan,” Nadery said. “All those who are managing and controlling his schedule, providing appointments, all see the advantages of breaking with the international community.”

Karzai seemed to go out of his way to snub the United States in the days leading up to President Barack Obama’s address Wednesday announcing an initial withdrawal of 30,000 U.S. soldiers by next summer.

He stood shoulder to shoulder this week with Ahmad Vahidi, the first Iranian defense minister to visit Afghanistan since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. He also announced he would attend an anti-terrorism conference in Tehran later this month, while at the same time questioning the sincerity of U.S. and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

“His timing is confusing,” Nadery said. “It is not wise for a politician to come out with such statements at a time when the troop contribution to Afghanistan is being hotly debated in Washington.”

One adviser whose friendship with Karzai spans decades said he had consistently warned the president against engaging in public battles with the United States, urging closed-door diplomacy instead.

Six months ago, he says an angry Karzai called him to the presidential palace.

“The president said, ‘You are always saying be careful, be careful, telling me what is wrong.’ And then he told me to never call him again. And since then I have not been able to see him and I am still an ‘adviser,’” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he says he still values his friendship with Karzai. “He will always be my friend but I am worried about him.”

( Musadeq Sadeq / Associated Press ) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks during a press event at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Thursday, June 23, 2011. Afghan President Hamid Karzai says his nation’s youth will stand up and defend its country as the U.S. begins to pull troops out.

Others have expressed similar concerns. They say over the last year Karzai has gradually distanced himself from confidantes who urged a more cooperative and less strident approach to U.S. relations.

A second adviser told the AP that participants at a recent Afghan security council meeting left “shaking their head at the flip the president has made” away from the U.S. and its Western allies and toward Iran and Pakistan.

“We are worried about our old friend,” he said.

Kabul is rife with speculation about the president’s recent behavior and statements of late, as well as the growing influence of Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i-Islami organization.

In part, Nadery blamed Karzai’s disappointment at not getting a strategic forces agreement with the United States that would allow for U.S. bases in Afghanistan as well as give the president protection and negotiation room with Washington. Instead, the document the U.S. gave to Karzai spoke only of a complete withdrawal, he said.

The United States has said it will have all its fighting forces out of Afghanistan by 2014 and that the security of Afghanistan will be turned over to Afghan forces. The U.S. has not asked for any bases or centers to remain under its control.

“I think the reality of their complete withdrawal has struck home,” Nadery said. “Now he sees they may go and they don’t want a (military) presence here, there were no bases that they requested and perhaps now he is thinking, ‘Who will protect me?’ And he has turned to Hizb-i-Islami and conservative elements in the country like those on the Ulema (clerics) Council, former warlords, as well as getting closer to Pakistan and to Iran.”

A nonviolent faction of Hizb-i-Islami was created last year with the express purpose of registering as a political party. Although its members publicly disavowed violence, they have privately said they supported Hekmatyar.

“We have a proverb of sorts in Afghanistan: Once a Hizb-i-Islami, always a Hizb-i-Islami,” Nadery said.

Hizb-i-Islami used widespread intimidation to elect dozens of its candidates in provincial elections. The group has also infiltrated government administration, and at least five of the country’s governors are members of its nonviolent faction, according to Nader and others who closely follow Afghan politics.

The growing influence of Hizb-i-Islami, some analysts warn, is also possibly paving the way for another civil war in Afghanistan once the U.S. and NATO withdrawal is complete.

Animosity between Hizb-i-Islami and leaders of Afghanistan’s minority ethnic groups runs deep. Hizb-i-Islami and the Taliban are both dominated by Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group.

Fahim Dashti, an ethnic Tajik and former editor of the defunct Kabul Weekly, told the AP that militia groups in northern Afghanistan have rearmed, frightened by the growing influence of Hizb-e-Islami in the government and the future implications of peace negotiations with the Taliban.

Karzai’s attempts to bring Hekmatyar’s party into an earlier Afghan government got him into trouble with the Northern Alliance, which loosely represents minority ethnic groups.

At the height of Afghanistan’s civil war in the early 1990s, Karzai sought to bring Hekmatyar into Kabul to bridge the differences between him and Ahmed Shah Masood, an ethnic Tajik who was ruling the capital at the time.

Karzai’s attempts at mediation landed him in jail, beaten by members of the Northern Alliance. He escaped in a vehicle provided by Hekmatyar and driven by Gul Rahman, who was arrested by the United States in 2004 for his alleged links to terrorism. The AP revealed that he was the first Afghan to die in U.S. custody from ill treatment in a facility near the Kabul airport known by inmates as the Saltpit.

Hekmatyar, who is in his mid-60s, has been an on-again, off-again ally of the United States over the past several decades. He was a key beneficiary of the U.S. in the 1980s during the fight against invading Russian soldiers.

According to testimony from Guantanamo prisoners, Hekmatyar sheltered Osama bin Laden for nearly one year after the collapse of the Taliban regime in 2001.

From his bases in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, Hekmatyar kept bin Laden safe until sometime in 2003 when he helped the al-Qaida leader escape to Pakistan, where he was killed by U.S. commandoes last month.

Hekmatyar, whose men have also attacked Afghan security forces, sent a delegation to Kabul last year to discuss a formal reconciliation. The delegation has since delivered a blueprint which calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan as well as an interim government until new elections can be held.

Some think Hizb-i-Islami may be achieving at least some of its goals more effectively from within the existing government.

“What I see is very dangerous not just for Afghanistan and the region but for the world,” Dashti said. He called the U.S. phased withdrawal “a strategy of escape.”

___

Kathy Gannon is AP Special Correspondent for Afghanistan and Pakistan. She can be reached at www.twitter.com/kathygannon

Manipulating Oil Prices To Hide Economic Collapse for a While

[Obama is attempting to manipulate the international oil market, using the Strategic Reserve and his Saudi friends, to help maintain the illusion for just a little bit longer that the economy has not already collapsed.  The Saudi scheme reported by Prince Turki in the article below (SEE:  Saudi Arabia May Use Economic Clout To Squeeze Iran: Prince), to get all the OPEC countries to follow Saudi lead and bust the production quotas, as an instrument of economic warfare against cash-strapped Iran.  Judging by the following report, the Saudis failed, so Obama arranged the Strategic Reserve release, to help flood the market and force the price down.  It looks as the though the $5.oo/bbl. price drop is short-lived, as determined by escalations of military tensions in the volatile region.]

 

 

 

 

Saudi clout on oil questioned after OPEC

Secretary General of OPEC Abdalla Salem El Badri. Saudi influence over the cartel appears to be on the wane. UPI/Maryam Rahmanian 

BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 23 (UPI) — Saudi Arabia’s defeat by Iran over oil production levels at OPEC’s June 8 meeting caused considerable dismay among consumer nations and hinted that Riyadh’s dominance of the cartel was in doubt.

The Vienna setback followed a February disclosure in U.S. documents released by WikiLeaks that Washington was concerned that the kingdom wasn’t able to pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices.

These have risen sharply since January when the Arab world was swept by unprecedented political upheaval and the loss of Libya’s output of 1.2 million barrels per day because of civil war there.

At OPEC’s ministerial meeting, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, pressed for the cartel to boost production by 1.5 million bpd to 30.3 million bpd to curb oil prices that threatened to undermine efforts to recover from the global financial meltdown.

Iran, the kingdom’s old rival, has long been hawkish about keeping prices high — especially now that its economy is being squeezed hard by U.N. sanctions imposed a year ago over Tehran’s contentious nuclear program.

“The acrimony that derailed … the meeting has wider implications than the short-term failure to agree a production rise wanted by Saudi Arabia but opposed by price hawks Iran and Venezuela,” Financial Times commodities specialist Javier Blas wrote.

“It signals that Riyadh’s moderate views on what should be the prevailing oil price carry less weight than in a group now more influences by Tehran and Caracas …

“The collapse of the meeting signals that a majority of the cartel sees oil prices above the $100 a barrel mark as a new floor, rather than ceiling,” Blas cautioned.

 

Oil price drops on reserve sale

 

Brent Crude Oil Futures $/barrel

LAST UPDATED AT 23 JUN 2011, 15:45 ET*CHART SHOWS LOCAL TIME

price	change	%
107.87	- -6.34	- +0.61

The price of oil has fallen after the International Energy Agency said that its members will sell some of their reserves on the world market.

Brent crude fell by more than $6.50 to $107 and US sweet, light crude fell by $4.70 to to $90.70 after the agency announced the plan.

The IEA says the move is in response to the disruption in supplies caused by the Libyan conflict.

It plans to release an extra 60 million barrels of oil on to the world market.

The US government has announced that 30m barrels, half of the total, will be released from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The UK plans to contribute three million barrels.

 

 

Soros Recruiting Young Revolutionaries from Central Asian Target Countries

Get tuned to young people from your region!

Written by Abulfazal

Soros Foundations in Central Asia organize “Youth in the 21st Century: Debating and Producing Media” summer camp that will last for 12 days (yahoo!) with young brilliant people aged 17 to 25.

So here is a deal:

Apart from age, the following thing is the last requirement: participants must be young people from Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to be eligible for applying.

“This is a regional series of workshops that will be held during the summer and early autumn of 2011 for young people throughout the world. These workshops teach youth to be effective producers of media information by equipping them to produce and package content towards creating a better society,” Soros Foundation’s press-release says.

Purpose: bring together young people from different countries of the region to learn about issues within their society, debate them, and produce media projects about the relationship between media and society.

Participants will debate issues relating to how the media and youth do and should interact as well as what role this relationship plays in society at large. To provide a background for debates, participants will conduct research and have the chance to interact with local, regional and international experts in the journalism field. Finally, participants will improve their skills in actually producing new media by learning from instructors and making their own media projects.

Dates: July 7th – July 20th, 2011
Venue: Talisman Village Hotel, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan
Language of instruction: English (please note that translation from English WILL NOT be provided)

All costs associated with participation in a workshop (travel, visa, accommodation and meals) will be covered by organizers.

Another Battalion of Georgian Troops To Help Fill Gap In Afghanistan

Georgia to Send More Troops to Afghanistan in 2012

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 9 Jun.’11

Georgia will send an additional battalion to Afghanistan next year, which will turn the country into the largest non-NATO ISAF contributor, the Georgian Ministry of Defense said on June 9.

The issue was discussed in Brussels during a meeting on June 9 between Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia and General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Meeting of NATO Defence Ministers with non-NATO ISAF contributing nations was held in Brussels on June 9.

“At the meeting [Akhalaia and Gen. Petraeus] discussed the decision to send additional Georgian battalion to Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus welcomed this decision,” the Georgian MoD said in a statement on June 9.

Georgia, which has 925 servicemen in Afghanistan, has lost total of eight soldiers since joining the ISAF mission in November, 2009.

Another issue discussed with Gen. Petraeus was a proposal to create a NATO-standard center to provide pre-deployment trainings for international operations, the Georgian MoD said.

India averse to inking military pacts with U.S.

SANDEEP DIKSHIT

Washington upset after Boeing and Lockheed Martin knocked out of race for combat aircraft

As the dust over rejection of two U.S. companies from the Rs. 11,000-crore Indian Air Force tender for fighter aircraft settles, official sources said the United States would also have to reconcile with India’s unwillingness to sign three military pacts.

The U.S. was extremely upset after Boeing and Lockheed Martin were knocked out of the race for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

The issue figured in the May 9 conversation between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President Barack Obama after the U.S. Embassy contended that the evaluation was not transparent.

The final report listed some qualitative requirements not met by the U.S. companies. But Washington claimed that these deficiencies were not mentioned in the initial report.

However, India has been unwavering in backing the evaluation of some 600 qualitative requirements of the six fighters in contention.

While the U.S. was denied a strategic foothold in the IAF’s offensive capabilities segment, it could face continued stonewalling with respect to three military pacts — Logistics Sharing Agreement (LSA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA).

The Indian attitude a month ahead of the strategic dialogue between External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to keep the issue away from the main agenda.

NO HIDDEN OBJECTIVE

The U.S. argues that there is no hidden aim behind the LSA. It is an inter-bank type of clearing arrangement — there will be periodical settlement of accounts for the use of each other’s facilities.

For instance, Indian naval ships have had 45 refuellings from the U.S. ships in the Gulf of Aden. Under the LSA, payments need not be made each time. The expenses could be adjusted against the money owed to India if U.S. ships came calling here.

But the Indian leadership feels that the LSA will give the impression of a strategic agreement with the Pentagon in military operations.

After the Defence-Secretary level Defence Policy Group (DPG) meeting in Washington earlier this year, both sides agreed to work towards a more “mature arrangement.” But there was no “question of a blanket agreement,” said the official sources.

India confronts a technical issue in signing the CISMOA, though officials feel it sounds heavier than it is. They also feel that interoperability, as argued by the U.S., need not be dependent on signing the CISMOA.

The communication will be encrypted and no other algorithm can be used on the system. During joint exercises, U.S. personnel sit on Indian ships with their own equipment.

But on aircraft there is no space for two or three different kinds of equipment.

The Navy and the Air Force have said they had no problems either way but politically this remains a sensitive issue though officials say it is not as heavy as it sounds.

India also has reservations on the third military agreement sought by the U.S. — BECA. The U.S. says the pact will enable C-130 and C-17 planes to fly close to the ground.

This entails installation of ground sensors, which none in the security establishment, except the Defence Research & Development Organisation is keen on.

Shocking video of suicide bomber blowing herself up in Russia’s Ingushetia

Shocking video of suicide bomber blowing hersel…, posted with vodpod

Moscow Irked by U.S. Meddling In Territorial Dispute with Japan

Moscow irked by U.S. role in territorial dispute with Japan

Kuril islands

© RIA Novosti. Vladimir Fedorenko

Moscow reacted angrily on Thursday to Washington’s possible involvement in theRussian-Japanese territorial dispute over to the Kuril Islands.

The reaction came in response to recent U.S.-Japanese consultations at the level of foreign and defense ministers who agreed to facilitate the normalization of Russian-Japanese relations by resolving the issue of “the Northern Territories.”

Both Japan and Russia have laid claims to the South Kuril Islands, called the Northern Territories by the Japanese, since they were annexed by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. The dispute has prevented the two countries from signing a peace treaty to formally end hostilities.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said U.S. interference in the dispute was “inappropriate.”

“Questioning Russia’s sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands, which are part of Russia’s territory as a result of World War II, as enshrined in the UN Charter, is inappropriate,” the ministry said in a statement.

The long-standing territorial dispute escalated last November following Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to one of the four South Kuril Islands. Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan called Medvedev’s trip “inexcusable rudeness,” sparking an angry reaction from the Kremlin.

Russia blasts U.S. Navy maneuvers near Georgia

American USS Monterey cruiser

MOSCOW, June 21 (RIA Novosti)

Russia is outraged at the maneuvers of American USS Monterey cruiser carrying the AEGIS air defense system near the Georgian coast on the Black Sea, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

The U.S. warship arrived for joint exercises with Georgia as part of the Phased Adaptive Approach program designed to shape the European segment of the U.S.-led project to build a global missile defense system, the Trend news agency said.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry earlier expressed concern that along with negotiations on cooperation in the global air defense system, [the U.S.] is conducting simultaneous ‘reconnaissance’ operations near the borders of our country,” the ministry said.

Russia has been deeply concerned over U.S. plans to deploy a European air defense system near the Russian borders, saying it threatened its national security. Washington said it needed the system as a shield against possible threats from Iran or North Korea.

“And now this American warship has demonstratively entered the Georgian port of Batumi,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Relations between Russia and Georgia have been complicated in the past decade. Russia has traditionally supported Georgia’s breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, while Georgia has been looking to join NATO.In 2008, Russia and Georgia fought a five-day war over the two breakaway Georgian republics, after which Russia recognized them both as being independent states.

“Whatever the explanations are, it is clear that the Georgian authorities will see the incident as encouragement for their ambitions for revenge against the Russian allies of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is unlikely to help stability in the region,” the ministry said.

Russian diplomats said they expected a more constructive approach from U.S. authorities, which would help provide security in the South Caucasus and the Black Sea region as a whole and respect the interests of all local countries.

Report: Bushehr experts killed in Russian plane crash

[An accident that kills Russia's top nuclear reactor specialists, just as they are entering into multiple contracts to build new reactors (SEE: Top Russian Reactor Designers Among Those Killed In Russia Aircrash ), has to raise suspicions of sabotage by Russia's greatest economic competitor.   This report is running in tandem with a report of repeated attempts to blind incoming Russian pilots at Moscow's Domodedovo International Airport (SEE: New attempt to blind Russian pilot with laser ).  Many more strategic coincidences like this might cause the Kremlin to wonder about its "reset" partners.]

Iranian nuclear efforts suffer major setback as five leading figures in design of its nuclear facilities perish in crash

Stav Spivak

The crash site Photo: Reuters

Five Russian scientists who assisted in the design of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant were among the 44 fatalities of Monday’s Russian plain crash, Moscow’s International News Agency RIA Novosti reported Thursday.

The Tupolev-134 plane broke up and caught fire upon making an emergency landing outside the northern city of Petrozavodsk. A preliminary investigation ruled out the possibility of a technical failure.

Three of the experts – Sergei Rizhov, Gennadi Benyok, and Nicolai Tronov – were among the atom facility’s designers. Andrei Trokinov, a top Russian nuclear technological expert, was also killed, as was Valery Lalyn, another nuclear expert.

The five worked at Bushehr and were to ensure the facility would withstand natural disasters.

The five were employed by Hydropress, a member-organization of Russia’s State Nuclear Corporation. Hydropress is one of the main companies involved in the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, and is also involved in projects in China, India and Bulgaria.

Novosti sources said that the deaths were “a great blow to the Russian nuclear industry.”

According to the news agency’s sources, no foul play was involved.

Obama Pressures Zardari Before Planned Trip To Iranian Anti-Terror Summit

[I will be extremely surprised if Zardari and Gilani dare to go to Iran, especially at this time.]

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari (L) speaks at a meeting with US President Barack Obama (AFP/File, Mandel Ngan)

President Obama telephones Pakistan’s Zardari

(AFP)

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan and the United States agreed to take steps to repair ties as President Barack Obama telephoned his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday, Islamabad said.

Relations between the two countries, wary at the best of times, deteriorated sharply after US Navy SEALs found and killed Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad on May 2.

“The two leaders agreed to take appropriate steps to repair the ties between the two countries on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit,” the Pakistani presidency said in a statement.

The bin Laden raid humiliated the Pakistani military and invited allegations of incompetence and complicity, while Washington has increasingly demanded that Islamabad take decisive action against terror networks in the tribal badlands on the border with Afghanistan.

“President Obama appreciated Pakistan’s efforts in the fight against militancy,” the statement said.

“President Zardari said that the fight against extremism was Pakistan’s own and it had to fight it to the finish in its own national interest”.

The leaders also “agreed to have regular contacts and interaction at appropriate levels for the resolution of issues”.

Pakistan has come under mounting American pressure to open a ground offensive in the border tribal district of North Waziristan, considered the premier bastion of Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants and a target for most of the US drone strikes.

But Lieutenant General Asif Yasin Malik, the corps commander supervising all operations in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, recently said the army would undertake an operation when it wanted to.

Many analysts see the drone strikes as compounding pressure on Pakistan to take action.

But the strikes are hugely unpopular among the general public, who are deeply opposed to the government’s alliance with Washington, but US officials say the missile strikes have severely weakened Al-Qaeda’s leadership.

Another Round of Central Asian Children Sucked Into the Belly of the Beast

Central Asian youth leaders attend democracy workshop

P G

BISHKEK: The week-long Summer School of Democracy 2011 for 95 young Central Asian activists began June 13, according to a June 12 UN Development Program (UNDP) statement. During the week, 95 participants – ages 18 to 28 – will discuss critical regional issues and listen to politicians, business owners, civil society representatives and experts. The program is meant to promote civic education and strengthen community leadership.

Haqqani, other top militants contact HPC

Farzad Lameh

KABUL: Some top Taliban officials and members of the North Waziristan-based Haqqani Group have contacted the Afghan High Peace Council (HPC), HPC officials have announced. “We are in contact with them, and so far we have achieved many things as a result of our efforts,” Hawa Alam Nuristani, a member of the HPC, said. “This is one of the militants’ pre-conditions – that they shouldn’t be named before reaching any deal.” “In the past five months, we have made contact with those who are involved in armed conflict, including (Gulbuddin) Hekmatyar and the Quetta Shura and Haqqani network,” HPC Chairman and Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani told the lower house of parliament June 2. “It would be difficult to end the insurgency soon,” Nuristani said. “It will take time for all sides to come up with an agreement.” “We’re working, and we are hopeful for the outcome,” she said. Ajmal Sohil, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, agreed with Nuristani’s assessments. “Militants have no other choice except to set up peace talks with the Peace Council or directly with the Afghan government,” he told Central Asia Online. “While Pakistan and Afghanistan are setting up negotiations on peace in the region, the Taliban are accelerating their attacks, (a move) aimed at getting more from the peace talks.” All sides – including Kabul and the international community – must try to make contact somehow with the militants, Sohil said. The HPC, though, has criticized some western countries for trying to negotiate directly with the militants. A number of militants willing to lay down arms and join the re-integration process are asking officials not to name or show them on TV, Mukhlis Afghan, spokesman for the Paktika provincial governor, said. Such requests stem from “security reasons,” Afghan said, “Because they are going back to their districts or villages and don’t want to be targeted by the Taliban.”

The Saudi Arabian Moment

[The Saudis will continue to carry Obama's anti-Iranian offensive until it becomes their turn for the double-cross.]

by Lawrence Davidson

The Saudis do not like President Barak Obama and his administration. The reason is straightforward. They do not like the what

 the administration says to them. They say things that Riyadh does not want to hear and, in their ears, sound downright dangerous.

An Analyses

By Prof Lawrence Davidson
Part I – Saudi Power

The Saudis do not like President Barak Obama and his administration. The reason is straightforward. They do not like the what the administration says to them. They say things that Riyadh does not want to hear and, in their ears, sound downright dangerous. For instance, the Obama administration has advised the Saudis, and the rest of the rulers in the Arab world, to get out ahead of the region’s growing protest movements and make democratic reforms. The Saudis have no tradition of democracy beyond the tribal advisory council. Before they were kings and princes, they were desert sheiks. Obama’s advice sounds like an erstwhile ally telling them to surrender. In the Bedouin tradition strong leaders do not surrender without a struggle.

The Saudis have shown their frustration with Washington in a number of dramatic ways. One was their coming to the rescue of the Bahraini monarchy (more sheikhs now calling themselves kings) and supporting the outright fascist reaction that regime has been practicing on its majority Shi’ite citizens. The Saudi’s are Wahhabi Sunnis, the most conservative of Muslims, and they do not care what happens to the Shi’ites. They view them as heretics and suspect that the ones in Bahrain are acting as the pawns of Iran (who they fear as a rising Shi’ite regional power). So the Bahraini terror seems a good and necessary thing in Riyadh. This writer finds the Saudi attitude in relation to Bahrain despicable.

The second way the Saudis have shown their frustration is by pointing a finger at U.S. hypocrisy. This was done in a sharp, no-nonsense op-ed by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal in the Washington Post of 10 June 2011. Turki has strong credentials. He has been the Saudi ambassador to both the U.S. and the U.K. He has been his country’s chief of intelligence. And while he presently holds no government office (which is probably why he was the one who authored this op-ed) his sentiments undoubtedly reflect those of the Saudi government. So what did the prince say?
1. Referring to President Obama’s speech on events in the Middle East, Turki noted that “President Obama…admonished Arab governments to embrace democracy” while he “conspicuously failed to demand the same rights to self-determination for Palestinians–despite the occupation of their territory by the region’s strongest military power.”

2. Turki found equally depressing “the sight of Congress applauding the denial of basic human rights to the Palestinian people” when recently addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. 

3. Taken together, the denial of such rights to the Palestinians, while calling for them for the rest of the Arab world was, in the Saudi view, a clear indicator that “any peace plans co-authored by the United States and Israel would be untenable and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain intractable as long as U.S. policy is unduly beholden to Israel.”

4. Thus, “in the absence of productive negotiations, the time has come for Palestinians to bypass the United States and Israel and to seek direct international endorsement of statehood at the United Nations. They will be fully supported in doing so by Saudi Arabia.

If the Saudis have it all wrong in Bahrain, they have it all right on Palestine. But the message does not stop here. Turki proceeds to throw down the gauntlet, so to speak.

5. “American leaders have long called Israel an ‘indispensable’ ally. They will soon learn that there are other players in the region…who are as, if not more, ‘indispensable.’ The game of favoritism toward Israel has not proven wise for Washington, and soon it will be shown to be an even greater folly….There will be disastrous consequences for U.S.-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state.”

It should be noted that there is no legal basis for such a veto in the UN General Assembly, but the Obama administration could make things very difficult simply by twisting arms so as to get nations dependent on Washington to vote no on Palestinian recognition. That, by the way, is what the Truman administration did in 1948 in order to get the necessary yes votes for Israel’s recognition as a state (the vote was a close thing). It would be sadly ironic if the Obama administration tried the same tactic to defeat the Palestinian effort.

6. Turki concludes, “We Arabs used to say no to peace, and we got our comeuppance in 1967. In 2002 King Abdullah offered what has become the Arab Peace Initiative….it calls for an end to the conflict based on land for peace….Now, it is the Israelis who are saying no. I’d hate to be around when they face their comeuppance.”
It would be dangerous to consider this a bluff. Turki is quite right when he says that there are others in the Middle East region who are more indispensable to the United States and the West in general than Israel. For instance, any and all of the oil producers of the area. To demonstrate this the Saudis do not have to repeat the oil embargo of 1973. All they have to do is cut back on production a little bit at a time and pressure the other Arab producers to do so as well. If they do that President Obama will be campaigning in 2012 with gasoline at above $5 a gallon. Nor will the price come down just because he loses to Mitt Romney or some other candidate in an elephant costume. It is unlikely to come down until the Palestinians have a just peace.

Part II – Israeli Power

Against this reference to very real Saudi power we have Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest bit of legerdemain. In a Rome press conference the Prime Minister, backed up by the smiling approval of his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi, told the world that “the problem is not the settlements; the root of the conflict is the fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognize the existence of the Jewish state.” Later on Netanyahu elaborated, “This is an insoluble conflict because it is not about territory….Until the Palestinians agree to accept Israel – not just as a country, but as a Jewish state – it will be impossible to move forward.”

All Israeli leaders seem to have possessed this power to create illusions. Here Netanyahu manifests this by moving the peace process goalpost simply by the spoken word. This magic act seems to be underpinned by the spectators complete lack of historical memory and perspective. So, Netanyahu is able to say historically incorrect things and get away with it. Here is what he left out:

1. In 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organization, then led by Yasir Arafat, formally recognized the state of Israel . At the time it was clearly understood what the “state of Israel” meant. No one was trying to play fast and loose by leaving out a descriptive term like “Jewish.” Arafat himself latertold the Guardian newspaper that it was “clear and obvious” both that Israel was and will be Jewish and the refugee problem has to be solved in a way that maintained that Jewish character.

2. Then there is the information revealed by the leaked Palestine Papers (January 2011). What they showed was that Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) and his follows had offered the Israelis just about every thing they wanted. As I noted at that time, Abbas and his colleagues “were willing to accept the Bantustans, to give up almost all of Jerusalem, to turn their backs on 99% of the Palestinian refugees, to look the other way as the people of Gaza were slaughtered and to even serve as an ally of the Israeli occupation forces on the West Bank. By the time they were done there was nothing left that was worth fighting for. As the PNA’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat told U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, they had done everything but “convert to Zionism.” And yet, the Israelis scorned the Palestinian compromises.”

Now, one can say that Netanyahu is so narrow minded and under-informed that he does not remember 1993 or Arafat’s subsequent clarification to the Guardian. But he must remember the capitulation described in the Palestine Papers. After all, it happened partly on his own watch. So, what is it with him and his “Jewish state”demand? The only logical conclusion is that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a “confidence artist” and he thinks of the rest of us, particularly the U.S. Congress, as his “marks.” Behind this illusion is the reality: the Israeli leadership is not interested in peace. Indeed, peace is to be avoided because it would necessarily stop their absorption of Palestinian land. This is really why it is “impossible to move forward.”

Part III – And The Winner Would Be….

What happens if the Saudis decide that the time really has come to exercise their immense economic power for the sake of the Palestinians? Can the power of the Israeli con artists successfully compete? Well here are some things to consider:

1. Zionist power outside of Palestine is confined to a small number of locales. That does not mean it is not real, but it does mean that its basis is shallow. For instance, its twin pillars are holocaust guilt and lobby influence. The latter, at least in the U.S., comes in the form of political payoffs. The Zionists also have media leverage but that influence is not as ubiquitous as it use to be. It is unclear just how long it would hold up in the face of serious economic counterweights.

2. Saudi Arabia’s power, on the other hand, is truly international and represents well founded, mass economic power. If the price of energy starts going higher and higher because the Saudis and other Arab oil producers cut back on production, the Zionists can’t do a thing about it. And what is Washington and the Europeans going to do? Invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, et. al.? That sort of thing happens in suspense novels and will only be advocated by fringe extremists of the John Bolton type. It is not likely to happen in the real world.

No. In this kind of confrontation the Zionists can not win. They are just not as indispensable as affordable energy. It is interesting that not much is being said about this in the U.S. media. Maybe the Zionists and their friends think that if they ignore the Saudis, they will just go away. Maybe they are praying for fusion power before September. Maybe they think it is all bluff.
Personally, I think it might just be Saudi Arabia’s moment. That it is Saudi power that can force a just peace on Washington and Tel Aviv. Let us hope so. For Palestine I’m ready to pay per gallon whatever it costs.

The Idea That Bombing Can Improve a Situation Is Untenable.

The Media Fog of War

Coy McKinney

An embedded reporter snaps war footage. The U.S. military-industrial complex and media work together to propagate the agenda of government.

NATO’s decision to intervene in Libya on humanitarian grounds has become an alarming and revealing assessment of America’s understanding of war. The way the “established” media portrayed the Libyan conflict, and its subsequent reception, illustrates our society’s failure to recognize how the power dynamics of plutocratic governance shape our realities. There is significant historical evidence that during times of war propaganda is used to justify military action for special interests. If we are to believe the theme of “change” will define our generation, we must pierce through both the media and the government’s rationalization of war.

I have found the established media’s reporting on Libya to be lacking in depth and consideration of an alternative to military intervention. This is not unusual. History repeatedly shows that during times of war, the established media have a tendency to mislead, deceive, and (in some instances) fabricate to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. This is shown through the writings of Carl Bernstein, the Nayirah testimony, the treatment of former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the beginning of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Essentially, the media has been used to facilitate consent, not dissent.

Given the assumption that we learn from history, our passive acceptance of such reporting is surprising. In 1758, author Samuel Johnson wrote, “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.” Later, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the emerging military-industrial complex, which we learned has atradition of lying in addition to tremendous governmental influence. If the military has to go to such lengths for approval, it is clearly not what we naturally desire. Thus, why has there not been more widespread skepticism and objection with regard to Libya?

Led by the U.S., NATO used reports of imminent danger to civilians as justification for humanitarian intervention. Yet, history shows that there is a good reason to approach this explanation with skepticism. In fact, it was recently reported that President Barack Obama exaggerated the humanitarian threat. Once we consider issues such as who the Libyan rebels are and what role oil, banking, previous planning, and geopolitics play in the situation, it seems that history is repeating itself.

The question for our generation becomes: At what point do we categorically reject war and its mechanisms from the beginning rather than in retrospect? We can do this by repudiating all war. We must reject the seemingly righteous theory of humanitarian intervention because it is divorced from how social conflicts actually arise and are resolved. The idea that bombing — an indiscriminate killing method the U.S. has become notoriously inaccurate at — can improve a situation is untenable. The most recent example is Kosovo; it was the nonviolent movement that ultimately resolved the conflict. Moreover, what right does any country have to determine the affairs of another country? This is the same expression of moral superiority used to justify imperialism.

If we want to live in a world of peace, we must learn from our history and see that war is an unnatural phenomenon; we need to reject it on a philosophical and spiritual level. Removing war from our conscience creates space for dialogue and diplomacy, and brings us closer to a shared utopia.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

George Will, “How many wars do these people want?”

 

 

George Will, “How many wars do these people want?”, posted with vodpod

Libya intervention reveals our hollow NATO alliance

NATO should long ago have unfurled the “Mission Accomplished” banner, writes George F. Will. The alliance has now become an instrument of mischief, and when the Libyan misadventure is finished, America should debate whether NATO also should be finished.

By George Will

Syndicated columnist

WASHINGTON — America’s intervention in Libya’s civil war, the most protracted and least surreptitious assassination attempt in history, was supposed to last “days, not weeks,” but is in its fourth month and has revealed NATO to be an increasingly fictitious military organization.

Although this war has no discernible connection with U.S. national security, it serves the national interest, in three ways. It is awakening some legislators to their responsibilities. It is refuting the pretense that the U.N. sets meaningful parameters to wars it authorizes — or endorses, which is quite different. And it is igniting a reassessment of NATO, a Potemkin alliance whose primary use these days is perverse: It provides a patina of multilateralism to U.S. military interventions on which Europe is essentially a free rider.

Recently, one-third of the House of Representatives — 87 Republicans and 61 Democrats — unavailingly but honorably voted to end American involvement in Libya in 15 days. Were Barack Obama not taking a Nixonian approach to the law — the War Powers Resolution — his intervention would have ended last month. The WPR requires interventions to end after 60 days, absent congressional approval.

Some people, who know better, insist that although the WPR is a 38-year-old law — passed over Richard Nixon’s veto — it is somehow a “dead letter.” Their theory is that any law a president considers annoying, or Congress considers inconvenient, or some commentators consider unwise, is for those reasons nullified.

America’s Libyan involvement began because Moammar Gadhafi threatened to do to Benghazi what Bashar al-Assad’s tanks and helicopter gunships are doing to various Syrian cities. When, in March, Obama said “building this international coalition has been so important,” he meant merely that a minority of the members of a 62-year-old alliance would seriously participate. Eight of NATO’s 28 members are attacking Gaddafi’s ground forces.

Obama, a novel kind of commander in chief, explained in passive syntax that “it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions.” These “others” would rather finance their welfare states than their militaries, so they cannot wage war for 10 weeks without U.S. munitions and other assets.

Last month, this column noted that NATO was created in 1949 to protect Western Europe from the Soviet army; it could long ago have unfurled the “Mission Accomplished” banner; it has now become an instrument of mischief, and when the Libyan misadventure is finished, America should debate whether NATO also should be finished. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had another purpose — NATO’s revival — but he recently fueled that debate when, in Brussels, he predicted “a dim, if not dismal future” for the military alliance unless its members reinvest in their militaries.

Since 9/11, U.S. military spending has more than doubled, but that of NATO’s 27 other members has declined 15 percent. U.S. military spending is three times larger than the combined spending of those other members. Hence Gates warned that “there will be dwindling appetite and patience in” America for expending “increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.” Already, U.S. officers in Afghanistan sometimes refer to the NATO command there — officially, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — as “I Saw Americans Fighting.”

After a recent NATO attack on a tented encampment where Gaddafi has met foreign leaders, The New York Times reported: “The desert strike appeared to show the alliance’s readiness to kill Col. Gaddafi. A NATO statement described the target as a ‘command and control facility.’ But apart from small groups of soldiers lurking under trees nearby with pickups carrying mounted machine guns, reporters taken to the scene saw nothing to suggest that the camp was a conventional military target.”

In March, Obama said U.S. intervention would be confined to implementing a no-fly zone: “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.” By May, Obama’s Bushian mission was to make Libyans “finally free of 40 years of tyranny.” After more than 10,000 sorties, now including those by attack helicopters, NATO’s increasingly desperate strategy boils down to: Kill Gaddafi.

Then what? More incompetent improvisation, for many more months.

Disgust with this debacle has been darkly described as a recrudescence of “isolationism,” as though people opposing this absurdly disproportionate and patently illegal war are akin to those who, after 1938, opposed resisting Germany and Japan. Such slovenly thinking is a byproduct of shabby behavior.

George F. Will’s column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.

Email: georgewill@washpost.com

Iraq demands US hand back billions of missing oil revenu

Iraq demands US hand back billions of missing oil revenue

• From:AFP 

IRAQ’S parliament Speaker, on a visit to Washington, will query American officials about $17 billion in missing oil money, a Baghdad politician said today.

Head of parliament’s anti-graft committee Baha al-Araji said Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, who left for Washington on Tuesday, would bring up the question of the missing billions, which have been under investigation for years.

Last week, US officials acknowledged that $US6.6 billion in Iraqi reconstruction funds had disappeared. Iraq says $US17 billion is missing, and was stolen by corrupt US institutions.

“Nujaifi is visiting the United States to discuss several issues, including the missing funds,” Araji said. “We spoke with the US forces in Iraq (about this issue) but we didn’t receive an answer,” he said, adding that Baghdad had approached the United Nations to help trace the money.

The cash was from the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales after the 2003 US-led invasion. It was placed in the Development Fund for Iraq, but went missing in 2004, when US envoy Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority was governing Iraq.

In a May 11 letter to the UN Security Council, the Iraqi parliament’s anti-graft committee accused US institutions working under the CPA of stealing the money.

“The US institutions (occupation forces) working in Iraq committed a financial crime, stealing the money of the Iraqi people that was allocated for the development of Iraq,” said the letter to the UN. “The sum was $17 billion,” it said.

The UN office in Baghdad did not immediately respond to a query about the letter.

But the US embassy in Baghdad said it was working with the Iraqi government to account for the funds.

“The US and Iraqi governments share a commitment to transparency and accountability with regards to the history of the Development Fund for Iraq,” said embassy spokesman David Ranz.

“Our two governments are working together, and with the Special Inspector-General for Iraq Reconstruction, to account for all of the funds expended from DFI to benefit the Iraqi people.”

Hardline MP Jawad al-Shehaili said: “The issue is not about returning the money.

“It’s about revealing that the US side did nothing for Iraq. It gave from the right hand and stole from the left,” said Shehaili, who is a member of an alliance led by the radical and anti-American Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.