Repeating Iraq’s Mistakes in Afghanistan

Repeating Iraq’s Mistakes in Afghanistan

War correspondent Michael Kamber paints a grim picture of the war in Afghanistan, which has learned nothing from the war in Iraq.

I left Iraq in January after covering the war on and off for nine years. Fortunate enough to be present at the withdrawal this past December, I learned many things in my years there. I have also worked in Afghanistan and, as I watch the news from there—the cold-blooded massacre of 16 civilians, the burning of Korans by American soldiers—I realize my painful lessons from Iraq are directly relevant to our current situation in Afghanistan. The most important of these lessons is the need for clear-eyed assessment and an end to what I term “magical thinking” on the part of American leadership.

For years, I listened as generals and politicians carried on about how the US was instilling democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iraq, and how the Iraqi people valued the lessons we bestowed upon them. In announcing our troops’ final departure, President Obama lauded the vigorous democracy and free press we left behind.

In fact, nothing of the kind exists in Iraq, nor will it exist in Afghanistan. Let’s backtrack for a minute and get our facts straight. The plan as recently as 2010 was for the US—as a sort of benevolent big brother—to keep enormous military bases indefinitely in a free Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We would maintain an armed presence in the heart of the Middle East alongside 16,000 US contractors based at the largest embassy in the world (US taxpayer bill: $750 million). These contractors would crisscross Iraq doing good works and looking after US business interests.

It has not turned out that way. The Iraqi government invited us in no uncertain terms to get the hell out, there is no free press, there are no US military bases and the mammoth embassy is already half shut.

In Fallujah, religious groups and government officials celebrated the US withdrawal with banners displaying burning US Army vehicles. It is an open secret that one political party or another controls every single news outlet in Iraq; intimidation and assassination of Iraqi journalists is routine. Reporters Without Borders ranks the country at 152nd in the world in press freedom, behind Pakistan and Russia.

The week the Americans pulled out, my access as a journalist shrank to zero. In neighborhood after neighborhood Iraqi police turned me away: “You can’t enter this neighborhood with a camera,” I was told repeatedly. My government-issued pass, guaranteeing me free movement, was worthless.

At a massive car bombing in downtown Baghdad on December 22nd, I ran into my Iraqi friends from the wire services. The soldiers, of course, threatened us if we took photos, but in years past we had always snuck photos, “shooting from the hip.” Now the photographers stood motionless.

“If they see one of us sneak a photo, we all go to jail,” my friend Mohamed from Reuters told me. “We don’t even try anymore, it’s not worth it.” On that day, the photographers waited into the night, then went home without photos of a bombing that killed over 60 people. So much for a free press.

♦◊♦

The last US troops cleared the Iraqi border on the morning of December 18th; in an enormous affront, thatsame evening, Prime Minister Maliki issued arrest warrants for top opposition leaders. Within days, American contractors were being arrested, held for days and expelled from the country by Iraqi authorities. US food convoys were blocked and food ran low at the three quarters of a trillion dollar embassy. The message could not have been any clearer: as we used to say when I was growing up in Maine, “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.”

Watching the news from Afghanistan—the deadly blunders by Americans, the killing of woman and children by an unhinged US solder, the needless affronts to Afghan pride, compounded by massive corruption and cynicism on the part of the Afghan government–it is hard to think we are witnessing anything but a rapidly accelerating endgame. This was, perhaps, inevitable. What is not inevitable is the same level of magical thinking and the fantastical statements from politicians and generals in Afghanistan that I witnessed in Iraq.

Repeatedly we have been told that the US is turning the tide in Afghanistan, that the Taliban are on the defensive. This is simply nonsense. After ten years of NATO pacification, one can no longer drive safely on many roads out of Kabul. While I was there last year, the grocery store adjacent the British embassy was destroyed by a suicide bomber; attacks are now commonplace in the capital itself and recently the US embassy was besieged for an entire day by determined attackers the Afghan forces were powerless to stop.

When I was in Sangin, in Helmand Province in 2011—where the British had been decimated in 2009 and 2010—the US Marines who took over from the Brits did not control even the perimeter of their firebase. On my first patrol, we walked less than 100 meters outside the wire before finding two IEDs buried in our path. Eventually, we continued on a short march through a hostile, silent village. The pathways were deemed too dangerous; the Marines blew holes, shortcuts in effect, through the walls of villagers’ compounds, further alienating locals, then quickly headed back to base.

The experiences of Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis recently confirmed my observations. With 27 years in the US Army, Davis returned last year from patrols in eight Afghan provinces; conditions were so bad that, in an extraordinary act for an active duty officer, he has publicly alleged a cover-up by American commanders.

Inevitably, commanders will point to areas that have improved. What they don’t repeat is the famous Afghan adage: “you have the watches, we have the time.” Obama’s surge, with its firmly delineated timeline for withdrawal in the face of a famously patient enemy fighting on its own soil, was an almost comically bad idea from the start.

Frankly, while I’m loath to criticize the US military (my father and grandfather are combat vets), a two-month period in which American soldiers videotape themselves urinating on corpses, accidentally burn Korans and wander off a base to massacre 16 Afghan civilians, betrays serious problems in a US military exhausted after ten years of simultaneous guerilla warfare on two continents.

After all these years, has no one in command realized that instruction number one to new recruits should be, “If you burn, step on or otherwise damage a Koran, your fellow American soldiers will die. If you even think something might be a Koran, leave it alone.”? Why, in 2012, do US service members not understand this? And it is clear that many American soldiers are near the breaking point. For those who have not been there, it is impossible to describe the stress of walking down heavily mined trails month after month as your comrades get their legs and genitals blown off. It is certainly no coincidence that the sergeant who massacred the Afghan civilians was on his fourth deployment and had reportedly suffered a serious brain injury in Iraq.

♦◊♦

These disastrous occurrences are coming at exactly the worst possible time—as the US is seeking leverage to negotiate an Afghanistan departure from a position of power. In this now vastly weakened position, with the French (their soldiers murdered by Afghan soldiers, their supposed allies) already committed to pulling out a year early, the Americans are playing with an empty hand.

The urination video and the massacre of the 16 civilians—mostly women and children—eerily mirror the Abu Ghraib photos and the Haditha massacre, incidents that almost single-handedly destroyed Iraqi trust in the US mission there. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a mere several dozen US servicemen, in five separate incidents, have inestimably damaged the work and sacrifice of the millions of American soldiers who served in these two theaters for a decade. Much of the battle these days is public relations, a war the Americans have clearly lost.

The most recent point of contention between the US and the Afghans is the Afghans’ insistence that control of the country’s prison be handed over to them. This scenario is, quite frankly, absurd. Nonetheless, the US, reeling from the recent Koran burning, has this past week agreed to it.

The Afghan security forces, illiterate, incompetent, corrupt and drug-addled, have a terrible record of human rights abuses with prisoners. This past year, they somehow managed to overlook the escape of 475 mostly hard-line Taliban prisoners from a Kandahar jail. A tunnel, dug over a period of months, included lights and a ventilation system; even high-level Afghan officials admitted complicity from within the jail.

One often-parroted rationale for staying in Afghanistan is that we are transforming women’s lives. Personally, I find it fascinating that the United States, a nation that is less than 250 years old, can invade a society that dates back thousands of years and “teach” citizens to live—education of girls being exhibit A. Does one really think that the Afghans have always wanted to educate their females but were merely awaiting the arrival of a USAID school-building team to get the process started? When western politicians tell you the Afghans embrace our efforts to educate women, they are grasping for a rationale to distract and mollify a western audience

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for educating girls. And so are what I would estimate to be a minority of Afghans—in the Pashtun areas, a miniscule minority. But the Afghans have the means to do it themselves if they so choose. An extraordinary four billion dollars a year—more than 25% of the GDP—is flown out of the country every year, according to a March 13th New York Times article.

The larger question is whether our forcing western ways on a fiercely proud, violent and ultra-conservative population results in a counterproductive backlash. This past December, the Afghan government freed a woman imprisoned for adultery after being raped—on the condition she marry her rapist.

Our amnesia serves us poorly. The Soviets, too, touted their emancipation of Afghan women. It didn’t end well—for the Soviets or for the women.

The fact is, we are soon going to have to leave Afghanistan to President Karzai, who has famously declared his willingness to join the Taliban and invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to give anti-American speeches from the presidential palace. If ever there was a more erratic, hostile “ally,” I can’t imagine who that might be—aside from possibly Pakistan, next door, who sold nuclear secrets to our mentally-unstable dictatorial enemies in North Korea, and are by all accounts funding the very Taliban that is killing American soldiers. But I digress.

Is it possible that functioning, independent democracies will one day stumble forth from the wreckage of our poorly-run occupations? I certainly hope so. Yet after 11 years, we can no longer endlessly await the day Afghan security forces are competent to take control. We must come to terms with the crucial fact that two opposing groups of fighters—taken from the same pool of Afghan men—are enormously divergent in their capabilities: those villagers that join the Taliban have fought the greatest army on earth to a standstill for a decade, those that join the US-trained Afghan army are incompetent, unmotivated and routinely turn their weapons on US soldiers.

There is a hard lesson in this—similar to lessons we failed to learn in Iraq. We have only to banish our leaders’ magical thinking and give it an honest listen.

To see more of Michael Kamber’s powerful photos from Iraq and Afghanistan, click here.

The Conspiracy Theorists Are Proving To Be the Sane Ones

[These are the most honest thoughts I have ever read from a Pakistani writer. 

If a snapshot is “worth a thousand words,” what is it the value of research and writing that effectively provides us with a “snapshot” of the future?  Those of us who have been branded with the iron of “conspiracy theorists,” seem to be promoting “wild ideas,” when we try to describe the unbelievable scenario that has engulfed the people of Pakistan for so long, but that is the main problem with trying to expose the activities of the lawless men who govern our societies, without suffering the fate of so many conspiracy theorists before us.  It is dangerous to expose the absurd actions of society’s overlords, but it must be done if “civilization” itself is to survive.  Nowhere is it more dangerous for conspiracy theorists and analysts, than it is in Pakistan.  This is why so many Pakistani writers do so from beyond the shores of Pakistan, if not beyond the reach of its “premiere” spy agency.  I salute Mr. Hassan, for speaking truth to power in the heart of it all. 

It is repugnant to believe that both of our governments (Pakistan and US) could have been supporting the terrorists and the Taliban all along, but that is the grandest conspiracy “theory” of all, which is slowly being brought to light through the story of Pakistan.  Pakistani “Islamist” terrorism has never been the fault of Pakistan alone; it has always been a joint venture with America.  American charges and hyperventilating about Pakistan “sponsoring terrorism” are hypocritical nonsense.  Pakistan, at best, has been a sub-contractor for American state terrorism. 

Logically, any of us who dare to defend the truth in this international war of lies and deceit, will denounce the militants/terrorists, as well as their ISI sponsors in the same breath, but in the second breath we must tie them all to the primary terrorist contractor—the CIA.]  

 

What if the conspiracy theorists are correct?

By Nadir Hassan

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad. He has previously worked at The Express Tribune and Newsline

Think back to a more innocent time in Pakistan, say around 2007 or so. Terrorism may have been at its peak then, but all the right-thinking people knew who the enemy was: the Taliban and its enablers in the media, who spun wild theories to explain how everything was the fault of the Americans. The US –– the conspiracy theorists somehow expected us to believe –– was using robot flying saucers to attack us. Ludicrous as it sounded, these deranged people claimed that hordes of beefy Blackwater mercenaries were roaming the country. Clearly, no serious and sane person was going to fall for any of this jihadist propaganda.

One by one, we got confirmation that drone attacks were real, that the US did indeed have a lot of private security contractors working in the shadows and, in the effort to catch Osama bin Laden, even ran a fake vaccination programme. Welcome to Pakistan, where even the most feverish anti-US conspiracy theories turn out to be, well, true.

Those who took the pragmatic position that in a fight between the Taliban and the US, it would be wise to pick the latter’s side, should have had to reexamine all their core beliefs –– if not when drone attacks became a matter of public knowledge, then at least when Raymond Davis was revealed to be a spook. But we’re in a war, dammit, and picking a side is vital, no matter how much we mockedDubya when he insisted on the same formulation. Thus, you have Pakistan’s liberals still denouncing the conspiracy theorists but having nary a negative word for those who are so adept at proving that the conspiracies actually exist.

Always beware of the person who is more willing to change his or her arguments than admit to a change of mind. So drones have now become the most effective way to kill militants, legality and scores of civilian deaths be damned. What’s wrong with a fake vaccination or two if it leads to the capture of Osama? And as for Raymond Davis, let’s just never talk about him again.

Many of those who seem more interested in being apologists for destructive US policies, mean well by concentrating on defeating the Taliban through strongly-penned columns and ignoring American transgressions. But what they are indulging in is propaganda, which by its very nature is designed to obfuscate, not illuminate.

The propagandists include among their ranks, obviously, the Zaid Hamids and Ali Azmats of the world. What grates is that some of their most ferocious critics seem to be stuck in the same mindset. Justifying desired policy outcomes becomes the goal, and facts are little more than an inconvenient hindrance that can easily be brushed away. Thus, you get someone like Farhat Taj arguing –– with a complete lack of verifiable evidence –– that citizens of Fata actually support being attacked by US drones and that the drones kill far more militants (or suspected militants) than civilians.

Here’s a simple rule that propagandists on both sides may want to follow: it’s possible to be both anti-US and anti-Taliban at the same time. Even better, sloganeering in support of a cause may not be the most effective form of argument. If it is absolutely essential to make a case in favour of one side, inconvenient facts should not be brushed away. We desperately need an honest debate. That we don’t have one is equally the fault of both sides.

Published in The Express Tribune

Softening-Up Baghdad for Arab Summit, or A Preview of Afghanistan 2014?

[If this is “Al-CIA-da” speaking to the world, it is making a sweeping statement about the entire terror war, not just the situation in Iraq and the Arab world.  Everything is interrelated in this grand psyop, no phase of the Pentagon/spy agency wars can be considered as a stand-alone event.  The coordinated bombings in Iraq do soften-up popular opinion to support the approaching Saudi-dominated Arab League meet to hype the war against Syria, but they also speak to the Saudi-supported Taliban war.  

As usual, the Islamist intelligence agents were speaking in their “dialogue of weapons,” saying, “Look what life in the war zone looks like, without the war’s American creators.”  This is a warning for the world about the future of Afghanistan, reminding us of the horrors of a renewed Afghan civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance forces.  The Afghan civil war was a ferocious massacre on both sides, with the rest of the population either caught between them, or forced to become refugees within their own country. 

Everything that is wrong in Afghanistan today is America’s fault.  Resolving the war and what we have done there can only come about with complete American withdrawal now.] 

45 dead in Iraq attacks ahead of Arab summit

Iraqi policemen inspect the site of a car bomb in Ramadi, capital of western Anbar province (AFP PHOTO/AZHAR SHALLAL) 

Iraqi policemen inspect the site of a car bomb in Ramadi, capital of western Anbar province (AFP PHOTO/AZHAR SHALLAL)

BAGHDAD : A wave of attacks on Tuesday in more than a dozen Iraqi cities killed at least 45 people on the anniversary of the US-led invasion of the country, just days before Baghdad hosts a landmark Arab summit.
The violence, which left more than 190 people wounded, bore the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda, which typically tries to launch coordinated nationwide mass-casualty bombing campaigns, although no one immediately claimed responsibility.
It was swiftly condemned by Iraq’s parliament speaker as a bid by the jihadist group to derail this month’s summit, while United Nations envoy Martin Kobler described the violence as “atrocious”.
Bombings and shootings rocked 14 towns and cities spanning the northern oil hub of Kirkuk and the Shiite shrine city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, from 7:00 am (0400 GMT), in the deadliest violence to strike Iraq in more than two months.
“We lost everything,” said Mohammed Sobheh, a policeman wounded in the Kirkuk attack. “Not one of my colleagues is alive – they were all killed.”
“I will never forget their screams, as long as I live.”
In central Baghdad, a car bomb exploded in the car park opposite the foreign ministry, despite dramatically heightened security in the capital in preparation for the March 27-29 Arab League summit.
At least three people were killed and nine wounded, officials said, underscoring concerns over Iraq’s ability to maintain security for the meeting.
Parliament speaker Osama al-Nujaifi condemned Tuesday’s “brutal criminal” attacks, and said they were part of efforts by Al-Qaeda to “derail the Arab summit, and keep Iraq feeling the effects of violence and destruction”.
Following the attacks, the government declared a week of public holidays from March 25 to April 1.
Coupled with Kurdish New Year festival Nowruz on Wednesday and the weekly Muslim day of prayer on Friday, much of the country will be largely closed until after the summit, while security forces have mooted the possibility of imposing a city-wide curfew on March 29, when Arab leaders are expected in Baghdad.
Tuesday’s deadliest attacks occurred in Kirkuk and Karbala, where 26 people died in total.
In ethnically-mixed Kirkuk, a suicide bomber blew up a vehicle at a police building, killing 13 people and wounding 50, according to Major Salam Zangana. All of the dead were police, as were the vast majority of those hurt.
The explosion, which was followed minutes later by a smaller car bomb, also badly damaged dozens of police cars and nearby homes belonging mostly to the tiny Kakaiyah religious minority.
“We have also received parts of bodies, but we do not know who they belong to,” said Mohammed Abdullah, a doctor at Kirkuk hospital.
In Karbala, two roadside blasts at the entrance to the city killed 13 people and wounded 48, according to provincial health spokesman Jamal Mehdi.
Karbala police spokesman Major Alaa Abbas gave the same casualty toll in the city, which is home to the shrines of revered Shiite leaders Imam Hussein and Imam Abbas.
Hours before Tuesday’s foreign ministry attack, a car bomb set off by a suicide attacker in the centre of the capital killed four people and wounded eight, officials said.
An early-morning gun attack on a Baghdad church also left three police dead.
Car bombs in Hilla, south of Baghdad, and Ramadi, west of the capital, killed four people and wounded 42, officials said.
A later roadside bombing in Ramadi targeting Anbar provincial governor Qassim Mohammed Abed left two people wounded, although Abed himself was unharmed.
Separate gun and bomb attacks in Salaheddin province, north of the capital, killed four people, including a city councillor, police said. Gunmen also killed a member of the Shabak minority in the main northern city of Mosul.
Bombings in Mosul, the refinery town of Baiji, the northern towns of Baquba, Daquq and Al-Dhuluiyah, and the central town of Mahmudiyah left 32 people wounded. A car bomb in the Salaheddin city of Samarra caused no casualties.
Security forces also said they defused six more car bombs.
Tuesday’s violence was Iraq’s deadliest day since January 14, when 53 people were killed in a suicide bombing outside the southern port of Basra.
The attacks come on the ninth anniversary of the beginning of the US-led invasion of Iraq which ousted Saddam Hussein, and just days before Baghdad hosts the Arab League summit, the first meeting of the 22-nation bloc to be held in the Iraqi capital since Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Officials insist Iraq’s forces are capable of maintaining security for the summit, but admit they may need to effectively shut down Baghdad to do so.
- AFP/cc/ms

South American Solidarity Developing Over Imperial Claims To Malvinas Islands

Peru cancels British ship visit over Falklands

File photo shows a public servant lowering the Falklands' flag in front of the Chief Executive building in Stanley, Falklands. (AFP/File - Daniel Garcia) 

File photo shows a public servant lowering the Falklands’ flag in front of the Chief Executive building in Stanley, Falklands. (AFP/File – Daniel Garcia)

LIMA: Peru cancelled a visit by a British navy frigate in solidarity with Argentina’s claims over the Falkland Islands.
The decision underlines Peru’s support for Argentina over the south Pacific archipelago, known locally as the Malvinas, Foreign Minister Rafael Roncagliolo told the official news agency Andina.
The British frigate Montrose was set to dock in Lima’s port of Callao on Thursday for a friendly visit.
Roncagliolo said the visit was cancelled as part of an agreement with the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) supporting Argentina.
Foreign ministers from the 12 UNASUR nations on Saturday urged Britain to discuss the sovereignty of the islands with Argentina, "in line with United Nations resolutions".
The British embassy in Lima said it "lamented" that Peru had cancelled the invitation, noting that the Peruvian government had the chance to raise the issue with Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne, who was in Lima on Friday.
Argentine troops seized the islands on April 2, 1982, only to be routed by British forces 74 days later. In all, 649 Argentine troops, 255 British troops and three Falkland Islanders were killed in the conflict.
Adding to the renewed tensions is Britain’s decision to allow offshore oil drilling near the islands, which lie 250 miles (400 kilometres) east of the South American mainland.

An Afghan ‘My Lai’

An Afghan ‘My Lai’

M K Bhadrakumar

Winding down

The US strategy to establish military bases in Afghanistan is going to be severely contested by the Afghan people.

The answer could be both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the question: Is it Afghanistan’s My Lai? Indeed, the mass murder in South Vietnam 44 years and 4 days ago was far more gruesome – between 347 and 504 civilians were slaughtered.
But the Panjwayi massacre is also a watershed event in the Afghan war. The rampage by a United States Army sergeant last Sunday in a remote village in Panjwayi district near a NATO base in Kandahar province, killing 16 Afghan villagers, irredeemably seals the fate of the 10-year old war in the Hindu Kush.
The faultlines hold ominous portents. Afghan nationalism is on the rise. The national mood has turned against foreign occupation and it has become a moot point that the western troops are in Afghanistan under a United Nations mandate. Second, the morale of the US troops is breaking down and a cycle of revenge killings involving them and their Afghan ‘allies’ may ensue. Three, Afghans deeply resent the Pentagon’s handling of the Panjwayi massacre – especially that the suspect was spirited away to the US – as a slur on their national honour.
All this, in turn, greatly complicates the US strategy to wind down the war. It is not only a question of the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of western troops and their heavy war equipment out of an increasingly unfriendly environment – which itself could be problematic – but also a matter of what sort of Afghanistan the US is leaving behind. President Barack Obama has emphasised that the ‘transition’ will commence in 2013 and the ‘combat mission’ will end in 2014, no matter what US commanders might say to the contrary. Hamid Karzai has since called for restricting the US troops to major bases.
In reality, what lies ahead is a downhill slope fraught with great dangers. The Soviet withdrawal in 1989 was carefully choreographed. Moscow tenaciously forged secret understanding with the Mujahideen forces operating in the Amu Darya region and could tap into the regional consensus urging troop pullout. Most important, Afghan state structures that the Soviets built were holding. But none of that is in place today as the US begins to withdraw.
Besides, there was transparency about the Soviet intention to withdraw. The US, on the other hand, continues to pursue a ‘hidden agenda’ by almost cynically using the struggle against al-Qaeda as a pretext to advance its geopolitical objective of establishing a permanent military presence in a highly strategic region of immense mineral resources, which also overlooks five nuclear powers.
Looking ahead, though, the US strategy to establish military bases in Afghanistan is going to be severely contested by the Afghan people and the regional powers. The strategy was predicated on a peace agreement with the Taliban but the latter have broken off the contacts with American officials. Conceivably, Taliban sense that ‘victory’ is at hand. But it may prove to be an illusion as the non-Taliban groups would almost certainly resist a Taliban takeover.

Strategic defiance

Equally, Pakistan may harbor a sense of triumphalism that its calibrated ‘strategic defiance’ of the US in the period since the 2-month detention of the CIA agent Raymond Davis in January 2011 has paid off. Washington is knocking at the gates seeking resumption of the partnership. Paradoxically, however, this is also the moment of truth for Pakistan. Pakistan needs to decide what sort of Afghanistan it wants as neighbour. It is way past Pakistan’s capacity to underwrite the Afghan economy. Over and above, Pakistan needs to take a long-term view and ponder over the profound implications of having a Taliban-run regime across the Durand Line.
The statements by prime minister Yousuf Gilani and foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar suggest incipient signs of new thinking. These are early days, but India’s interest lies in encouraging Pakistan to jettison the outmoded notions regarding ‘strategic depth’ and so on and reorient its Afghan policy in a way that serves the interests of regional security and stability.
How can India do this? First, India needs to clear up the cobweb in its own thinking regarding the Taliban. Second, India should encourage Pakistan to work for a broad-based government in Kabul. This needs to be handled at the highest level of leadership. Three, India will be stupid to force the dynamics of its presence at this juncture. It will be just fine if India keeps its diplomacy in a state of animated suspension during this transitional phase. The Afghan people aren’t running away anywhere and trust any Kabul government – even one led by Taliban – to reach out to India.
Actually, the most formidable challenge is the absence of any regional security architecture.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO] could have provided a framework but Indian diplomacy lacked the vision to accelerate its quest for membership as a top foreign-policy priority in anticipation of the uncertainties in regional security. The ebb and flow of relations with China (and Iran) and the slow pace of normalization with Pakistan work as negative features. And, it needs to be kept in view that almost all countries surrounding Afghanistan have fortified themselves one way or another to meet the exigencies of the post-2014 scenario for regional security. The latest was Beijing’s initiative to create a trilateral framework with Pakistan and Afghanistan – on top of the SCO and the ‘all-weather friendship’ with Islamabad. India is the exception as a lone ranger in regional security.

The Zionist Project

The Zionist Project

1948: LEST WE FORGET.

“Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word…it would be this: ‘At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today [1897] I would be answered by universal laughter. If not in 5 years, then certainly in 50. Everyone will know it’ “. Theodor Herzl Diaries 1987.

Herzl missed his goal by only 1 year.

Theodore_Herzl.jpg 

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be spirited across the borders”.

It all started in a small way as the first Zionist settlement in Palestine was founded with the financial help of Edmond James de Rothschild (1845-1934), a French financier who assisted a small group of the Russian Bilu Jewish Society to immigrate to Palestine in 1882. This Philanthropist sponsored a few more tiny settlements at the time such as Gai Oni, Roch Pina, Zichron-Ya’acov (which he named after his grandfather) and Rishon Letzion with settlers from around Eastern Europe.

The single aim of all these settlements and their planners who envisioned them was to slowly and secretly transfer, drive out and ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people.

This concept of transfer of the local population was held dear by almost every member of the Zionist leadership in Europe. At their first official Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, they called already for “the establishment of a publicly and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people”.

20 years later, the Balfour Declaration threw them a lifeline.

Copy%20of%20Israel_Zangwill.jpg 

To secure support for this project, Israel Zangwill (1864-1926), an Anglo-Jewish writer and a powerful leader of British Zionism, coined the phrase: “a land without a people for a people without land”. Little did he and all his colleagues in the Zionist leadership realise (or wished to remember) that there were almost 410,000 Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) living in Palestine around the early 1890’s.

weizmann.jpg 

Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952) who was to become Israel’s first president, said once: “…there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people…and there exists the Jewish people and it has no country. What is left is to fit the gem into the ring…”

The Zionist leadership did not actually mean that there were no people in Palestine. They meant that there were no people in Palestine worth considering as a people.

The Zionists truly believed that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people. Theodor Herzl wrote in June 1895: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border…and both the process of expropriation and removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly…”

Israel Zangwill followed by saying that “if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two peoples…”.

Zionism’s idea of transfer was even tested within a wider Arab framework where Zionist leaders would offer Arab leaders financial incentives, expertise and international influence in exchange for acquiescence in the expansion of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine). In January 1919, for example, Chaim Weizmann and the Hashemite Emir Faisal who was aspiring to the leadership of the Arab Nationalist Movement, concluded an agreement under British auspices whereby Faisal would support Jewish immigration into Palestine in return for economic support for the future state Faisal was hoping to create.

As Palestinian resistance to the expansion of the Yishuv was growing, so was the Zionist determination to implement the doctrine of separation between the Jewish community and the Palestinian population in preparation for the eventual establishment of a Jewish state.

David_BG.jpg 

Yishuv leaders such as David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), born in Poland as David Gruen and who arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel, strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw the link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place (1936-39), the Zionists saw a chance and a reason for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military threats.

Ben-Gurion declared in 1936: “…What can drive the Arabs to a mutual understanding with us?…Facts, only after we manage to establish a great Jewish fact in the country will the precondition for discussion with the Arabs be met”.

Valdimir%20Jabotinsky.jpg 

Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), born in the Ukraine-USSR, was a member of the World Zionist Organisation and later founded the Zionist-Revisionist movement, which was the central ideological component of the Likud (now Ariel Sharon’s Kadima party), always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

Jabotinsky believed that only ‘an iron wall of bayonets and Jewish armed garrisons’ would be able to secure Jewish sovereignty on both sides of the Jordan River. Like Weizmann and Ben-Gurion before him, he had only contempt for the indigenous Arabs. He once said: “we Jews, thank God, have nothing to do with the East. The Islamic soul must be broomed out of Eretz Yisrael”. This ideology found expression in two military terrorist organizations:

Menachem%20Begin.jpg 

The first was the Irgun formed in 1935 by Menachem Begin (1913-1992) a Polish Jew who became prime minister in 1977 (and about whom Albert Einstein in a 1948 letter to the New York Times said that he and his party were “closely akin in their organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties”).

Shamir.jpg 

The second was the Stern Gang led by Itzhak Shamir (born Icchak Jaziernicki in Rozana, Poland in 1915) which was responsible for many terrorist acts including the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte. Shamir, of course, became Israel’s Prime Minister not once but twice: from 1983-84 and again from 1986-1992.

This Shamir described the Arabs as “beasts of the desert, not a legitimate people”. In a memorandum to UNSCOP in 1947, his Stern Gang called for the compulsory evacuation of the entire Palestinian population from Palestine, preferably in the direction of Iraq. As the sale of land by absentee landlords increased so did the bitterness of the Palestinian farmers who worked on them and who were now forced to leave by their new land owners. For this purpose, Chaim Weizmann established the Jewish Agency Executive to promote the idea of Palestinian transfer from newly acquired land. At the same time, Jewish immigration increased and the number of Jewish immigrants jumped from 30,000 in 1933 to 61,000 in 1935 (representing 29.5% of the total population).

Go To Next Section

Egypt: ‘US Zionist group caught with pants down’

Egypt: ‘US Zionist group caught with pants down’

Rehmat’s World

Egypt plans to try 19 members of the US-based National Democratic Institute (NDI), North African region, for interference in Egypt’s internal affairs. US State Department funded NDI has rejected the accusation that its staff is working to fulfill US-Israel agenda in the Muslim African countries.

The offices of several local and international NGOs including Freedom House and the International Republican Institute (IRI) were raided in December by Egyptian authorities as part of a probe into alleged illegal funding.

Senator John Kerry, a Crypto-Jew, has warned Cairo, calling the arrests “a slap on the face” for America. Israel-Firster Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina) has warned Cairo that Egypt will lose $1.3 billion military aid if those Americans end up in jail. Zionist Jew Senator Ben Cardin (R-Maryland), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday that Washington should “re-evaluate” the bilateral relationship, adding that it was “totally unacceptable” for Egypt to prosecute the activists on charges of illegal funding of aid groups.

The National Democratic Institute (NDI) West Africa - is headed by Ms Barrie Freeman who denies that NDI has a hidden agenda.

However, according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Ms Barrie Freeman is lying from both sides of her Zionist body. Ron in an article published on October 11, 2003, said:

The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in theUnited States. The NED injects “soft money” into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections “promoting democracy.” How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?”.

So whose agenda the NDI staff could be pursuing other that the Zionist entity, which is scared to death with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Egyptian Judge Sameh Abu Zeid said in Cairo that the NGOs are operating “without license,” and that their work “constitutes pure political activity and has nothing to do with civil society work.”

If convicted, the members of these organizations could be sentenced to five years in prison, according to another judge, Ashraf Ashmawi.