Pentagon Decides That Counterinsurgencies Are No Fun

Pentagon rethinking value of major counterinsurgencies

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Nearly a decade after the United States began to focus its military training and equipment purchases almost exclusively on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military strategists are quietly shifting gears, saying that large-scale counterinsurgency efforts cost too much and last too long.

The domestic economic crisis and the Obama administration’s commitment to withdraw from Iraq and begin drawing down in Afghanistan next year are factors in the change. The biggest spur, however, is a growing recognition that large-scale counterinsurgency battles have high casualty rates for troops and civilians, eat up equipment that must be replaced and rarely end in clear victory or defeat.

In addition, military thinkers say such wars have put the U.S.’s technologically advanced ground forces on the defensive while less sophisticated insurgent forces are able to remain on the offensive.

Counterinsurgency “is a good way to get out of a situation gone bad,” but it’s not the best way to use combat forces, said Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Washington-based Center for a New American Security. “I think everyone realizes counterinsurgency is a losing proposition for U.S. combat troops. I can’t imagine anyone would opt for this option.”

Many Pentagon strategists think that future counterinsurgencies should involve fewer American ground troops and more military trainers, special forces and airstrikes. Instead of “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” as former President George W. Bush once defined the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Pentagon thinks it must train local populations to fight local insurgents.

The military calls it “foreign internal defense,” although some have a pithier name: counterinsurgency light.

The new kind of counterinsurgency is “for the indigenous people and a handful of Americans,” said Joseph Collins, a professor at the National Defense University, a Pentagon-funded institution that trains officers and civilians.

The newer approach is on display in Yemen and Pakistan, countries in which the U.S. faces entrenched extremist organizations with ties to al Qaida.

In Yemen, where leaders have distanced themselves publicly from the United States, the U.S. has quietly dispatched military trainers to work with Yemeni government forces and has provided air support, largely for observation. In addition, the U.S. sent Yemen $70 million in military aid.

In Pakistan, the Obama administration has authorized a record number of unmanned airstrikes along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and promised $7.5 billion in aid over five years. In addition, defense officials said roughly 100 special forces trainers were working with the Pakistani military.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recognized the changed thinking in an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

“The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan and Iraq anytime soon — that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire,” he wrote. More likely, he said, are “scenarios requiring a familiar tool kit of capabilities, albeit on a smaller scale.”

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently ordered a review of how the military should train and equipment itself in the future, acknowledging that it’s shifting course.

“The chairman wants to look at the capability and size of the military” after Iraq and Afghanistan, spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said. “No one has codified the requirements.”

The economic downturn is driving much of the change within the Pentagon. Military spending has risen steadily since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

When former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld arrived at the Pentagon in 2001, the Defense Department budget was $291.1 billion, or $357.72 billion in today’s dollars. The current budget is $708 billion for defense costs and funding the wars.

Pentagon planners say budget cuts are inevitable, and that the change in strategy will help make them.

“We now have to figure out what works. We used to have a practically unlimited budget. Not anymore,” said a senior military officer, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly. “There is no more room to experiment.”

After most major conflicts in U.S. history, defense spending has dropped to prewar levels within two years, accounting for inflation, said James Quinlivan, a military analyst at the RAND Corp. The ends of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t likely to make spending drop that quickly, Quinlivan said.

With no clear defeat of groups such as al Qaida, defense spending is likely to remain higher than it was before 9/11, he said.

Moreover, because of Afghanistan’s rugged terrain, it will cost the U.S. more to send troops there, and to get them out, than it did in Iraq, he said.

The wars now account for $159 billion of the Defense Department’s budget. There are 96,000 troops in Iraq and 87,000 in Afghanistan.

The shift to a lighter form of counterinsurgency also incorporates the Obama administration’s national security view, which calls for getting troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. forces are set to begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011, and a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is to be complete by the end of that year.

It also, military strategists said, allows the United States to prepare better for a future war that would be fought against another country, not against relatively amorphous terrorist groups.

U.S. officials acknowledge that since 9/11 there’s been little training for the kind of coordinated land, sea and air battles that have characterized most of the United States’ previous conflicts. While no one wants to predict where such a war might be fought, military strategists say that U.S. troops could be involved in battles between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, and China and Taiwan.

The last time the military discussed a major strategy shift was during the first months of Rumsfeld’s tenure, when he proposed streamlining the military to use less manpower and more technology. That discussion of shrinking the military ended in the months after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that technology alone couldn’t defeat the burgeoning insurgency there. The order by Bush to increase the number of troops in Iraq, the so-called surge, ended that approach.

Revamping the military itself won’t come cheaply. Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the Army, told Congress earlier this month that he thinks it will cost the Army as much as $36 billion to reset itself to be fully prepared for other kinds of warfare. He estimated the job wouldn’t be done until 2013.

Still, there are doubts that a change in strategy will defeat armed groups that threaten to take over “failed states” such as Somalia and Yemen. Using trainers and airstrikes requires a strong local government that can lead such trained forces, said Collins, the NDU professor. That’s hard to find in the countries that are most susceptible to groups such as al Qaida.

The Pentagon’s new strategy also could founder if there were another major attack on the United States.

Still, officials point out that the attempted Christmas Day attack, allegedly by a Nigerian man, on a flight bound for Detroit pointed up how limited U.S. options are to respond to a terrorist action.

“Could we have attacked his little Nigerian village or the town in Yemen where he was training?” said one senior Pentagon official, who spoke only anonymously because he wasn’t authorized to speak to reporters. “That would not have done anything. We have to be smarter. There are more cases like this than Iraq and Afghanistan.”

A huge military response may not have any better results than a smaller undertaking would. Nearly nine years after the U.S. invested thousands of troops and billions of dollars in counterinsurgency, Osama bin Laden remains at large.

Obama Can’t Resist Scolding Pakistan for Afghan Situation

Pak must shun India ‘obsession’, Afghan ‘meddling’ ‘bad habits’: Obama

Washington, May 13 (ANI): Noting Pakistan’s ‘obsession’ with India, US President Barack Obama has said that Islamabad must shun the ‘bad’ custom of viewing its neighbouring nation as a primary threat and realise that it was extremists emanating from its own soil that are threatening the country’s very existence.

Speaking during a joint press conference with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, Obama pointed out that his administration was working both with the Pakistani and Afghan leadership to help them do away with some of their ‘bad habits’ and old suspicions.

While describing Pakistan’s obsession with India as one of its ‘bad habits’, he acknowledged that Islamabad is now slowly overcoming the practice.

“I think there has been in the past a view on the part of Pakistan that their primary rival, India, was their only concern,” The Dawn quoted Obama, as saying.

“What you’ve seen over the last several months is a growing recognition that they have a cancer in their midst; that the extremist organisations that have been allowed to congregate and use as a base the frontier areas to then go into Afghanistan, that now threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty,” he added.

Responding to a comment of an Afghan journalist that Pakistan was the “the only reason that Afghanistan was not civilised today”, the US President said Washington was determined to help improve relations between Islamabad and Kabul.

“Our goal is to break down some of the old suspicions and the old bad habits and continue to work with the Pakistani government to see their interest in a stable Afghanistan which is free from foreign meddling,” he said.

During the briefing, Karzai was asked about reconciliation with the Taliban, to which he replied that there are “thousands of Taliban who are not against Afghanistan or against the Afghan people or their country; who are not against America either or the rest of the world”.

Karzai said there are many Afghan Taliban who wanted to come back if provided an opportunity and political means to do so.

“It’s this group of the Taliban that you’re addressing in the peace Jirga. It is this group that is our intention,” he said.

Without mentioning Pakistan, the Afghan President said that the Taliban being controlled from ‘outside’ were increasing troubles for his country. (ANI)

Turning North Afghanistan Into the Next South

[American forces apply their “leadership kill” policies against northern Afghan militants.  First they killed the Taliban commander for the northern region two weeks ago (see article below), then follow-up attacks are launched upon the same headquarters after mourners begin to gather plotting revenge attacks.  This is the same area that was formerly clear of most Taliban, until the influx of militants from Central Asia and Pakistan began and then mysterious helicopters began to appear (allegedly British Chinooks), where they were witnessed dropping militants:

“Afghanistan’s Pajhwok news agency reported that “US ambassador scotched speculation that his country was helping terrorists in the north, saying America had nothing to do with the air-dropping of armed men from helicopters in Samangan, Baghlan and Kunduz provinces.” At an October 11 news conference in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai had himself claimed that ‘some unidentified helicopters dropped armed men in the northern provinces at night.’” ]

35 Taliban Militants Killed In Afghanistan

(RTTNews) –

Thirty five Taliban militants, including three commanders, were killed in a special operation by U.S. forces in northern Afghanistan.

Those killed include foreigners, a term used by local people referring to al-Qaeda-linked militants of Arab and Central Asian origin.

The U.S. forces on Wednesday night raided a Taliban hideout in Ghor Tapa, north-west of the provincial capital of Kunduz, after receiving intelligence report that the militant group was staging for a large attack, NATO said in a statement.

Militants hiding in the compound tried to resist by shooting at the troops from different directions. More than two dozen insurgents were killed and several others captured in the encounter.

They carried out the attack with the support of Afghan forces.

Kunduz Governor Mohammad Omar said at least three of the dead militants were trained to carry out suicide-attacks in the region.

Relatively peaceful until three years ago, the northern provinces of Baghlan and Kunduz are currently infested with Taliban and other insurgents.

Afghan government had warned of much larger security operations in these regions unless the Taliban fighters lay down their arms.

An additional 500 German soldiers and 4,000 U.S. forces were expected to be deployed in the region by summer, raising the strength of ISAF troops in the north to 12,000.

by RTT Staff Writer

For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com

Afghan governor: Taliban commander, bodyguard killed in Kunduz

DPA, Thursday, 29 Apr 2010 08:41:29 GMT

Kunduz, Afghanistan –

Afghan troops and US special forces killed a Taliban commander and his bodyguard Thursday in northern Afghanistan, a provincial governor said.

Mullah Daoud and one of his men were killed in a pre-dawn operation in Ghor Tapa, an area in Kunduz city, the capital of the province of the same name, Governor Mohammad Omar said.

“He was the main Taliban commander in the area,” Omar said, adding that four other suspected militants were detained by the soldiers.

Daoud was appointed Taliban commander for Kunduz city and the province’s Chardarah district after his predecessor Mullah Selaab was killed in a similar operation on the weekend.

Afghan troops and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have recently stepped up their operations against militants in Kunduz and neighbouring Baghlan, the most turbulent provinces in the region.

Afghan and ISAF forces killed Mullah Noor Mohammad, the Taliban’s shadow governor for Kunduz province, Monday.

Moscow metro bombing suspects killed in sting, masterminds known

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Moscow metro bombing suspects killed …", posted with vodpod

FBI Arrests 2 Friends of Faisal Shahzad In Long Island and N.J.

Faisal Shahzad Times Square bomb plot probe: FBI arrests 2 after raids on Mass., N.J., L.I. homes

BY BEVERLY FORD IN WATERTOWN, MASS. AND ALISON GENDAR AND STEPHANIE GASKELL
DAILY NEWS WRITERS

Nicastro for News

FBI agents survey the scene in Times Square earlier this month in the aftermath of a botched car bomb attempt.

Two people were arrested Thursday morning as FBI agents raided homes in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Long Island in connection with the botched terrorist car bombing in Times Square.

The raids on a gas station and a home outside Boston were linked to friends of accused terrorist Faisal Shahzad, arrested two days after the failed plot, sources told the Daily News.

Agents also targeted homes in Shirley and Centereach on Long Island, and another in Camden, N.J., sources said.

The FBI cordoned off a home in Watertown, Mass., a suburb of Boston, with sources indicating friends of Shahzad had stayed at that address.

The agents also raided a Mobil gas station on Harvard Street in Brookline, Mass., where they recovered a 2000 Honda Accord, officials said.

The vehicle was from the Watertown home surrounded by the FBI. A neighbor said the agents arrived around 6 a.m. and took one person out of the house in handcuffs.

Vinny Lacerra, 50, who lives across the street, said 15 to 20 FBI agents with guns drawn flanked the house. “FBI! Put your hands up!” he said they shouted.

The agents went inside, and came out 15 minutes later with a man in handcuffs.

“I was surprised to see this because this is what you see on TV,” Lacerra said.

Last week, sources said the FBI was searching for a courier who provided Shahzad with money for his May 1 plot to blow up an SUV in the Crossroads of the World.

The search for that suspect was continuing, a source told the News.

The coordinated raids also targeted at least one location on Long Island, the FBI said.

“There’s no known immediate threat to the public or active plot against the United States,” said FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz.
Marcinkiewicz said search warrants had been executed at “several locations in the Northeast,” including the Boston suburb and New Jersey.

While details were scarce, bombing suspect Shahzad cooperated with federal investigators after his arrest while trying to flee the country.

It was unclear if the raids were linked to information provided by the talkative terror suspect.

Shahzad, a 30-year-old Connecticut man with ties to the Pakistani
Taliban, was arrested two weeks ago after leaving his explosives-laden car in the middle of Times Square.

The raids come a day after the Obama administration slashed $53 million from New York City’s terror-fighting budget.

sgaskell@nydailynews.com

Bakiyev supporters seize regional Kyrgyzstan offices

Kurmanbek Bakiyev is now in Belarus Supporters of Kyrgyzstan’s ousted president have stormed regional government buildings in the south of the country. Hundreds of Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s supporters took over buildings in the cities of Osh, Jalalabad and Batken. They were demanding the reinstatement of regional governors who were fired by the new interim government. Mr Bakiyev was ousted in a bloody uprising last month, which left at least 80 people dead. The new government has launched several criminal proceedings against the former president, who is now in Belarus with his family. But tensions remain high nationwide, as the government attempts to assert its authority on the country. ‘Uncertainty reigns’ The government buildings in Osh were stormed by some 250 Bakiyev supporters on Thursday morning. There was a brief scuffle with supporters of the new government before they smashed their way through the glass doors and entered the building, but the police did not intervene. They are demanding the reinstatement of the former regional governor, Mamsadyk Bakirov, who was fired after the collapse of Mr Bakiyev’s government. Mr Bakirov told journalists: “It’s the people who support us. The people are against the interim government and their chaotic changes.” A few hours later, reports from Jalalabad – the home city of Mr Bakiyev – said around 100 of his supporters had broken into and occupied local government buildings there. They too were said to be demanding the reinstatement of the local governor there. Before the end of the day they had also seized similar buildings in Batken, the interim government confirmed to Reuters news agency. There were also unconfirmed reports that other Bakiyev supporters had also seized an airport in Osh. On Wednesday, a protest was held in the capital Bishkek in which supporters of the former mayor demanded his return. Kyrgyzstan’s interim government insists it is in control, reports the BBC’s Rayhan Demytrie. But uncertainty still reigns in the country following the uprising in early April in which 85 people died and which led to the ousting of Mr Bakiyev, our correspondent adds.

Religious “opium” for the Kyrgyz people–(bad Google Translation)

[This hard to read article tells the tale of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Kyrgyzstan and its spread through desperate “black widow” types, who urge men to work for the Caliphate.  Hiz-b is the doorway to Wahhabi subversion, which is the CIA entry point.]

Religious “opium” for the Kyrgyz people

M. Acker

in terms of the current political instability in one of the greatest threats to Kyrgyzstan is rampant religious extremist movements in the country.
Today, significant financial investments from abroad are used for construction in the country, places of worship and theological education. Confirmation of this is the statistics – in the rural areas alone, the Osh region were constructed and are 560 mosques in the Jalal-Abad – 603, in the Batken – 410. Only in a particular area Kadamdzhayskom Batken region has more than 123 village mosques to 158 thousand people.
It is said that the quality of many of the clergy left much to be desired – some figures and does intertwined with the criminal world.

The leader of the Kara-Suu cell REO Hizb ut-Tahrir Ayubhon Mashrapov directs the construction of a new mosque in g.Kara-Suu. Through the imam of a mosque of the same city “Al Sarahs” Rashoda Kamalov, he organized a fundraising campaign on the scene among the parishioners.
Kamalov, the imam himself accused of organizing a criminal group and the activities that led to the death. Thus, in early January of this year into the murder of one of the representatives of the local investigative office OPG Kara-Suu district police department initiated a criminal case against a group of individuals, including R. Kamalov.
was caused by the divorce of religious leaders with his first wife, and then between the former spouses now and then there were constant squabbles and disassembly for the division of property.

The subject of the dispute were containers on the market “Turataly. To address these issues “on the concepts of” Imam has hired three members of the group, one of whom died in the regular disassembly. In this regard, the servant of the dark cult is not limited to – the third wife of R. Kamalov – Gulpashsha Karimov’s daughter had one of the leaders of the local cell “Hizb ut-Tahrir Abubakirov Karimov.

More and more women in Kyrgyzstan have become ardent campaigners for various extremist ideas and actively urge to build an Islamic caliphate. Thus, in the village Uchkurgan Kadamdzhayskogo districts, many small “hudzhr. In the organized “hudzhrah” right at home the leaders of the women’s wing of Hizb ut-Tahrir and Nafisa Teshabaeva Munojat Tashtanova promote the idea of his extremist organization for girls.

However, much of the Kyrgyz society has lived the ideas of radical Islam. This affected, above all, the common people. For example, in the market “Shaftalizar” in Jalal-Abad, representatives of the religious extremist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir is actively survive Sellers, who walk not according to Sharia. Of course, such harassment is in no way inconsistent with the Constitution, but to that “little things” already do not pay attention.
In addition, the situation is compounded by the fact that the leadership of the Spiritual Directorate of Muslims (SDMK) relies only on close contacts with international centers and clerical their financial investments, which have become for members of the clergy a good trough.

In general, for the introduction of import trends in the territory of Kyrgyzstan are used the most unexpected methods. Here’s one way – with the state Medical Academy in Bishkek organized elective courses on Turkish language students. In this regard, here were invited teachers from Turkey. Among those invited are the supporters of the religious currents “Nurchisty” that the propagation of opinions Seyed Nursi and distribute relevant literature. One of the teachers involved in the involvement of students in the ranks of “Nurchistov” is a Turkish citizen Ablahazhi Nasimov.

With Turkey “friends” not only the followers of “nurchistov”, but also members of “Hizb ut-Tahrir. One member of the Kara-Suu cells of this organization Murot Madaminov in early January with his family went to Turkey for permanent residence. In addition to the baggage emigrant carried with him … 10 young people from among the residents of Kara-Suu district. The fact that M. Madaminov recently worked as the Imam Mosque Madamin Cory “Bishkek, which came under the influence of representatives of this religious movement. To continue its work and he went to Turkey, taking the faithful followers. However, Murot took care of that case in his absence flourished – he left behind a “governor” – his own brother Bakhtiyor, which is considered one of the leaders in Kara-Suu cell of Hizb ut-Tahrir. ”
In Kyrgyzstan, religious extremism, spreading their corrupting influence continues to be involved in its ranks all the great masses.

Mairambek Acequia
a-mayram@mail.ru

Turkish Air Defense System Deployed to “Defend Syria, Iran against Israel Raids”

Readers Number : 137 13/05/2010 High-ranking sources in the Israeli Foreign Ministry expressed displeasure with Turkey over deploying anti-aircraft batteries along the Syrian border in the Iskenderun district. The Turkish daily Hurriyet meanwhile, quoted a military source as saying that “this move aims at repelling a US or Israeli attack against Iran or Syria.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry sources noted that if the news published in the Turkish media were true, then Ankara would be taking a side with Damascus and Tehran, instead of preventing the nuclearization of Iran. In a phone call with Al-Manar TV on Wednesday, Mustafa Ozcan, a Turkish political analyst, said “The news in Hurriyet daily is true. The air defense system was moved from Istanbul to Iskenderun to counter any surprise Israeli air raid, because in 2007 Israeli warplanes used the Turkish airspace to carry out air raids on Syrian targets. Thus Turkey took this precautionary measure so that what happened in 2007 would not happen again.” Asked whether the cooperation between Israel and Turkey gives the Zionist entity the freedom to use Turkey’s air space, Ozcan replied, “Of course not. Israel cannot do this without prior notice to Ankara because Syria is Turkey’s neighbor and ties between the two countries are developing day after day.”

The end for America in the Middle East?

By Michael Young

Overstatement in the service of truth is no vice, some might say. But where is truth, or indeed overstatement, in the observation that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of America’s 60-year domination of the Middle East, unless the Obama administration reverses its policies? Alarmingly, no one has any answers.

The notion sounds absurd. America lose the power that it has managed to retain for as long as most of us have been alive? Perhaps it is absurd. But consider this: given President Barack Obama’s lack of a coherent strategy for the region, everywhere we see deepening vulnerabilities, when not a conscious decision by Washington to downgrade its ambitions in the face of more dynamic regional actors. These actors have shortcomings of their own, but they appear to be better prepared to deal with the consequences than the United States.

And let’s add one more item to the bleak mix: Washington’s listlessness actually increases the chances that it will enter into a war with Iran, which Obama has been so understandably keen to avoid.

The Arab state system may well be caught up in a phase of terminal deterioration. Most Arab regimes are old and have lost much legitimacy by consolidating their authoritarianism while offering their younger, expanding populations little in the way of consensual social contracts, useful educational opportunities, and better living conditions. Stalemate prevails, and the onetime sway of leading Arab states has devolved to non-Arab states on the region’s periphery: Turkey, Israel and Iran.

This has had negative consequences for the United States, whose political preeminence in the region rested on the old Arab order. Longstanding American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are weaker than ever before. At the same time, the Obama administration is in the throes of psychological retrenchment over the Middle East, the result of myriad factors, above all a sense that the US cannot financially afford the vast empire it once controlled.

Looking at American policy, what do we see today? For starters, we see an Iran actively challenging America in the region. This may look like hubris, but the Iranians see little that is worrisome. Take Iraq, which the US fought long and hard over and ultimately stabilized after the spectacular blunders of the immediate postwar years in 2003-2005. Today, Obama’s stubborn priority is to withdraw, effectively denying Washington the primary terrain needed to contain Iran, but also to exercise its power over Syria and to an extent Saudi Arabia.

Iraq’s election results provided an opportunity for the Obama administration. Iran’s closest allies lost ground, in contrast to the blocs led by Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki. Instead of trying to impose some compromise between the two men that could have created the basis of a more stable Sunni-Shiite order, therefore of a new strategic relationship between Washington and Baghdad, Obama did nothing. Iran saw an opening and is now helping establish a Shiite-led government that will doubtless favor Iranian interests.

Washington’s refusal to develop a strategic relationship with Iraq to hold back Iran, means the US will have to rely, instead, on the frail Gulf states to push back against the Islamic Republic. Not surprisingly, Iran sees very few serious obstacles coming from its Gulf Arab neighbors. And these would dissipate completely if Tehran were to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has the added ability in places such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, but also in Yemen, of being able to mobilize members of disgruntled Shiite minorities.

The impact of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement on the Gulf and Iraq, the critical playing field in the American-Iranian rivalry, would be relatively limited. The Palestinians have been a tool used by Iran, as has Lebanon, to protect its core objective: building up its supremacy in the Gulf. Iran’s priority is to progressively undermine America in the Middle East, with other regional tensions, in themselves of less immediate importance to Tehran, feeding into this. Hizbullah and Hamas act as useful shock absorbers for Iran while it develops a nuclear capability, the cornerstone of its bid for regional hegemony.

Which brings us to the shipwreck that is Afghanistan. Obama has locked himself into an impossible situation there. The president has set a deadline for the start of a withdrawal from the country in July 2011, and if he fails to win the midterm elections next November, which is probable, we can be sure that he will begin implementing his pullout before the next presidential election, unless there is a dramatic improvement in American fortunes. Until now the signs are not good. Washington finds itself fighting the Taliban while striving to find common ground between the conflicting objectives of its two major (and mistrusted) allies in the Afghan war, President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan. Add to that that Pakistan has no real desire to see the US succeed, preferring to reassert its own authority in Kabul.

This is excellent news for Iran. An Obama administration trapped in the tentacles of Afghanistan makes more likely American retreats in the Middle East. And if Barack Obama decides next year that it is time to wind down his Afghan adventure, the implications for America’s view of itself, and the world’s view of America, could be dramatic, particularly if Iran uses that opening to finalize a nuclear weapon. Obama will have presided over two major military withdrawals while allowing Iran to become a major adversary in the Middle East.

But there is another possible scenario. Obama may realize that he’s been cornered by Tehran, and resort to the one thing he can still call upon with some sense of superiority, military power. Having stood down in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and in all probability on the Palestinian track; having seen his major allies becoming steadily more marginal; having seen all this, the president may finally decide that enough is enough, and go to war. Whatever happens, Obama’s bad choices today are pushing him in the direction he most dreads.

Michael Youngis opinion editor ofTHE DAILY STAR. His “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster) has just been published.

Read more:http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=114786#ixzz0nnqhOUkS
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

Anchoring to Russia

Yusuf Kanlı

For many years Turkey has been sparing no effort to become the energy hub for the rotors of Western Europe in hopes that such a development would anchor this country more firmly with the West and help its bid to join in the European Union as a full member even though many members of the European club of democracies was not so comfortable with that idea.

Turkey consolidating its relations with Russia, increasing the capacity of existing pipelines and laying new pipelines that will carry Russian oil and gas to European markets might paradoxically help Turkey come closer with Europe, or help Turkey become an indispensable country for the European economies.

Replacing old antagonisms of the Cold War era, a competition for influence over the republics of Central Asian and the Caucasus with increased economic and commercial cooperation, intense political consultations and opening new avenues of cooperation, such as nuclear technology for civilian purposes, is of course in the best interest of the two countries. Over the past decade Russia, thanks mostly to Turkey’s energy imports, has become the most important economic partner of Turkey.

Signing of some 20 new agreements and protocols between Turkey and Russia will of course usher relations between these two countries into an advanced new stage. Particularly the agreement to waive visa requirements for nationals of the two countries to visit the other country – even though visas will be lifted for visits up to a month – will help increase further interaction between the two nations, help businesses establish easier and firmer links. For Russian citizens it was easy to obtain visas valid for two months at arrival gates, but for Turks it was a pain to obtain visas to visit Russia. Eradication of this problem will of course help boost tourism potentials as well as business-to-business contacts.

The joint pledge of visiting Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his host President Abdullah Gül that the two countries would work to increase bilateral trade volume to around 100 billion dollars in the next five years demonstrate the existence of the political will in both countries to further bring the former Cold War era rivals closer economically, as well as politically.

Indeed, high on the agenda of the two countries are some new energy projects, including a pipeline that could pump Russian oil from Turkey’s Black Sea coast to the Mediterranean and construction of Turkey’s first nuclear power plant with Russian assistance.

The other side of the coin

Naturally the target to boost several fold the present bilateral trade volume between the two countries and reach the targeted 1000 billion dollars volume within the next five years is just great.

Yet, contrary to the past (1987) deal between the two countries according to which Turkey was to pay up to 70 percent of its energy imports from Russia with exports to that country, contracts signed after 1987 included no such clause and the ratio of Turkish exports to Russia covering Turkish imports from Russia has dropped as low as 7 percent producing an enormous trade deficit for Turkey.

Now, even though Russia has agreed to a decrease in the price of natural gas it is exporting to Turkey, the new deals signed with Russia include no reference to a payback of imports from Russia with Turkish exports to that country.

Worst, Turkey is presently at least 60 percent dependent on Russia regarding its energy requirements. Right, Russia has been proudly declaring that it has never ever betrayed the pledges it has made to its commercial partners but one cannot stop remembering the cold winters Ukraine was compelled to suffer. Of course no single party could be taken solely responsible of a problem that arises between two or more parties to that issue. As they say two needed for tango.

Now, with the signing of the memorandum authorizing Russia to build and operate a nuclear power station in Turkey – the first of this country – Turkey will increase its energy dependence on Russia. Would it not be wiser for Turkey to give the “build-operate-transfer” contract of its first nuclear power station to a country other than Russia to which this country so heavily dependent in meeting its energy needs?

What if Turkey encounters some political problems with Russia and Moscow decides to use the energy card to force Ankara agree to some bitter compromises that it would otherwise categorically reject?

Of course Turkey should enhance its economic, political as well as social contacts with our neighbor Russia, but should not Turkey try to diversify its energy sources?

Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform

[Turkey’s non-violent solution.]

Medvedev’s visit to Turkey and the Karabakh issue

C. CEM OĞUZ

If in the 1990s someone was to suggest that Turkish-Russian relations could one day reach a level of strategic partnership it would have likely induced uproarious laughter to listeners. Psychological constraints revolving around misperceptions were a kind of Sword of Damocles in bilateral relations while the persistent lack of understanding, prevalent among the ruling elite on both sides, was the main source of mutual mistrust.

This problem was more acute among the Russian decision makers. In the post-Soviet period, the anti-Turkey lobby in Russia consisted mainly of security elites and, to a lesser extent, communist and ultra-nationalist deputies of the Duma who considered Turkey a proxy of Russia’s arch-military adversaries, namely the U.S. and NATO. Due to ambitions they advanced with regard to the Russian sphere of influence, or the so-called “near abroad,” their perception of Turkey appeared to have been that of a rival and traditional enemy.

As an expert on ex-Soviet geography, however, I always believed that, in time, the unique geopolitics of both countries, having left profound marks on their historical progress and bilateral relations alike, would inevitably force them to adopt a more constructive attitude. I was certain that they would eventually realize their interests overlap rather than clash. Time has proven me right.

The primary drive behind this astonishing process has come from Russia itself. The current Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, since coming to power in 2000, has prioritized economic interests in his foreign policy conduct while geopolitical ambitions have been replaced by geo-economical aspirations. Trying to make the most of Russia’s few assets, Putin has increasingly relied on the export of energy resources. Under his leadership, the creation of an energy dependence on Russia among its neighbors in particular has become Moscow’s primary foreign policy goal. The reason Turkey has been elevated to the top of Russia’s foreign policy agenda is closely related to Putin’s strategic expectations in that regard.

In the meantime, Turkey was also undergoing a change in its foreign policy understanding, the main motto of which was “A Turkish world from the Adriatic to China.” Having first been uttered in a speech made by Henry Kissinger in a session of the World Economic Forum held in Istanbul in 1992, this idea dominated the Turkish understanding of the nation’s foreign policy drive toward ex-Soviet geography in the post-communist period. However, it was the late İsmail Cem, the Turkish foreign minister between 1997 and 2002, who realized that it was this understanding which was raising Russian hackles. According to Cem, Turkey’s foreign policy could be best described as being bereft of a historical dimension. He argued it lacked depth with respect to time and breadth with respect to space. At this time, Turkey needed to set a new policy course that acknowledged the role of Russia as pivotal.

The Action Plan on Cooperation with Eurasia, signed in 2001, became the eventual manifestation of the political rapprochement between the two countries. As someone who contributed academically to it, I very clearly recall that Cem, first and foremost, wanted both sides to speak openly, no matter whether they agreed or disagreed. Thus, the calls for consultation, as well as confidence-building measures, which are envisaged in the agreement, have undeniably led to talks of a strategic partnership today.

The Justice and Development Party government, under the theoretical guidance of Ahmet Davutoğlu, has taken one step further. There is no doubt that at present, Ankara is paying special attention to the Russia factor in its foreign policy conduct. There are, nevertheless, expectations. With the earlier mentioned agreement, both capitals finally acknowledged bilateral cooperation in the vast Eurasian area as a basic prerequisite for regional stability. This is particularly valid for the Caucasus, where the main problem is the resolution of the Karabakh knot. It is in this regard that Moscow should approach Prime Minister Recep T. Erdoğan’s persistent calls for a regional Caucasian stability pact in a more concrete manner.

One of the basic issues to be discussed during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s official visit to Turkey will therefore be the Karabakh problem. Circles close to Erdoğan say that the prime minister, during his last visits to Russia, frankly highlighted Turkey’s expectations of the Russian government and there have been promising signs that these calls have not gone unheard. During my visit to Baku last February, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov, for instance, described Russia’s stance as having become “more constructive than ever.” Apparently it was the Sochi meeting held between Medvedev, Azerbaijani President İlham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan that had increased his optimism.

In any strategic partnership, a common strategic vision is an essential prerequisite. What matters is whether respective parties are seeing the world, as well as the problems before them, through the same lenses. For the Turkish-Russian partnership the acid test will ultimately be the Karabakh issue.

Uzbekistan May 13, 2005, The Andijon Uprising–Freedom House Overplays Its Hand

[The official American version of the Andijon uprising is given below.  Beneath that clip is a more truthful version of the events that got American forces kicked-out of this key central Asian nation.  Keep in mind that Freedom House is our “secret CIA;” at that time, it was even run by former CIA Director, James Woolsey.  The charges against the subversive organization, which masquerades as a humanitarian aid NGO, were creating democratic-revolutionary opposition forces and giving them unsupervised access to the Internet.  These were the same activities that the group carried-out in Kyrgyzstan, which were responsible for the second Tulip revolution.]

Uzbekistan: The Andijon Uprising

Asia Briefing N°3825 May 2005

OVERVIEW

On 13-14 May 2005, the government of Uzbekistan brutally suppressed a popular uprising in the eastern city of Andijon and the surrounding area. President Islam Karimov announced his forces had acted to end a revolt by Islamist extremists, yet the hundreds of victims — possibly as many as 750 — were mostly unarmed civilians, including many children. The uprising was not a one-off affair. It was the climax of six months in which especially ruinous economic policies produced demonstrations across the country. Nor is it likely to be the last serious bloodshed unless Western governments and international bodies press much harder for fundamentally different political and economic policies. Anger and frustration with the regime are tangible everywhere in Uzbekistan, and the explosion point is dangerously near.

The uprising began with protests over the trial of 23 local businessmen accused of involvement in Islamic extremism and acts against the state. Karimov was quick to blame Islamic groups, a theme eagerly adopted by the Russian government. However, there is no publicly available evidence for the involvement of jihadists: the businessmen were part of a self-help collective of entrepreneurs that, although motivated by religion, has shown no inclination to violence. Relatives of the men say the trial was motivated by their economic success and their growing power in the city due to their provision of charity to the less fortunate. The government has linked the protests and the 23 businessmen to the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation but has offered no evidence, and the businessmen’s families deny any connection.  (read HERE)

Uzbekistan: Freedom House Becomes Latest NGO Casualty

February 12, 2006 – 8:00pm, by Nikola Krastev

A civil court in Tashkent on February 7 rejected Freedom House’s final appeal of a six-month suspension of its activities in Uzbekistan. It took the court only seven minutes to reach the verdict. The appeal was a final attempt by the US-based organization to reverse a decision by the Uzbek Justice Ministry, which ruled that Freedom House violated laws on nongovernment organizations. Freedom House was specifically charged with providing free Internet access to Uzbeks and hosting unregistered organizations — including human-rights defenders and political parties. As Uzbek authorities intensify their policy of squashing dissent, Freedom House says it will keep its personnel in Uzbekistan employed while awaiting the end of its six-month suspension.

There were signs of trouble for Freedom House — which measures freedom in countries around the world — at the end of May 2005, shortly after the massacre in the southern city of Andijon, where hundreds of protesters were killed by government troops during a demonstration.

Lisa Davis, Freedom House’s deputy director of programs, says that while holding a training session in Samarkand on May 29, Freedom House officials were confronted by some 15 people who forced their way into the seminar and accused Freedom House of being Wahhabists — practitioners of a very rigid form of Islam — and an enemy of the Uzbek state.

Employees Harrassed

According to Davis, it was a staged event. But even before the Andijon events, she tells RFE/RL, Freedom House employees in Uzbekistan had a tough time.

“Our local staff, nearly all of them have been interrogated and harassed, including one of our senior program managers, who is Uzbek,” she said. “He was dismissed from the university.”

Davis says that Freedom House’s initial court proceedings in Tashkent lasted from the beginning of November 2005 until January 11, 2006, when the Justice Ministry decided to suspend the organization. She says that during the initial phase of the case the judge, a woman, acted professionally, even drilling officials from the ministry and allowing Freedom House to present eight witnesses, but ultimately ruled against them.

Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House’s executive director, tells RFE/RL that while the organization will abide by the court decision and has suspended its activities in the country, they are going to keep its staff — a Serbian, a Croatian, and an Azerbaijani — on the payroll because it is a crucial time for human rights in Uzbekistan.

“We don’t have any plans to release anyone because we think it is extremely important that Freedom House and the international community continue to provide support and be there for the human-rights defenders during a very, very difficult time for them,” she said.

Questionable Allegations

Windsor says that while the rejection of the appeal was not entirely unexpected, the charges brought, she says, were spurious.

“We thought the allegations against us and some of the testimony was ridiculous, and it really shows badly on the Uzbek government’s stated commitments to preserve their international obligations [with regard] to human rights,” she said. “This is a regime that’s really trying to stifle and squash any kind of accurate information dissemination in the country to their own citizens.”

Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” ratings, which have been published annually since 1972, are highly regarded as an accurate assessment on the state of freedom in countries. In the latest, 2006 rating, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan share a dubious distinction: the lowest possible rating on political rights and civil liberties.

Only six other countries shared that status: North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, and Myanmar. Uzbekistan, however, went a notch lower in civil liberties compared to its previous rating. These two former Soviet states’ ratings are in stark contrast with Freedom House’s consistently higher ratings of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s.

“They’re not quite at the bottom of the list yet, countries like North Korea are,” Windsor said. “But I would say that given the steps that they are taking, they’re going to try to work hard at downgrading [them] even further on this.”

NGOs Under Fire

Approximately 200 domestic nonprofit organizations have been forced to close in Uzbekistan and a number of international NGO’s had to leave the country as a result of the crackdown by President Islam Karimov’s regime. Among them are Internews and the Open Society Institute. International media including the BBC and RFE/RL have also been compelled to leave in recent months.

Alexander Cooley, who is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University and an expert on Central Asian affairs, tells RFE/RL that the expulsion of foreign NGOs has done a lot of damage because they were the only entities in Uzbekistan capable of maintaining dialogue between the West and Uzbek officials after the disengagement between Tashkent and Western powers following the bloodshed in Andijon. That included the Uzbek government telling United States forces to leave an air base in the south of the country.

“A lot of them actually lamented the expulsion of the base because they saw that as way to retain the connection between the U.S. and Uzbekistan and at least to keep the spotlight on Uzbekistan and keep American interests in Uzbekistan,” Cooley said. “My sense is that a lot of these activities have become more difficult after that disengagement.”

RFE/RL’s repeated oral and written requests for comment from the Uzbek Embassy in Washington, D.C., went unanswered.

Is the “Times Square Terrorist” more Field-based Warfare?

By Jeff Gates

Buddhas of Bamyan

In March 2001, Indonesian Intelligence Chief Arie Kumaat asked American James M. (“Mel”) Rockefeller to assess the Taliban’s destruction of the two ancient Buddhas of Bamyan carved into a sandstone cliff in central Afghanistan 140 miles northwest of Kabul.

Familiar with psychological operations (psy-ops) that involve lengthy pre-staging, Kumaat inquired of Rockefeller in Jakarta why that incident occurred at that time and place.

Kumaat also noted the curious timing of two other operations: (a) a Defense minister in India had recently been caught in a bribery scandal involving an Israeli company, and (b) that same Israeli firm attempted to bribe the Malaysian Defense Minister.

Six months prior to 911, the motivation for the Bamyan incident was difficult to discern. In hindsight, we now know that high profile event branded the Taliban globally as Evil Doers.

What about the briberies? The amounts involved were too small, Rockefeller suggested, to constitute real bribes. Rather, both were attempts to change key personnel though it was not yet clear to what end. Since 911, the reason for the timing of those Israeli operations comes more clearly into focus.

In national security parlance, the dynamiting of the Buddhas “prepared the mind” of a global public for whom the Taliban remained an obscurity until their extremism was branded by that well timed event. The briberies will be addressed in a subsequent analysis. Suffice it to say that both involved the pre-staging of “out-of-theater” operations.

By Way of Deception

For those skilled at Information Age warfare, the relevant battlefield is the public’s shared field of consciousness. In that intangible realm, the power of association is routinely deployed to create lasting impressions as a means of mental manipulation.

In preparing that ‘field’ for an emerging narrative, mainstream media depicted the incident at Bamyan as a “cultural Holocaust.” Akin to the casting of a movie, by September 11, 2001, the intolerant Taliban had already been cast as a credible enemy of liberal democracies.

When the reaction to 911 triggered a global search for a plausible Evil Doer, the narrative quickly became a morality play with the U.S. pitted against extremists who hate our values.

As a nation, we segued seamlessly from a global Cold War—against those who hate our values to a Global War on Terrorism—against those who hate our values.

The violence inflicted on the peaceful Buddhas of Bamyan also brought Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar onto the battlefield of consciousness—where he remains.

In the unfolding of this storyline, Omar became the oft-featured Epitome of Evil, akin to a Muslim Darth Vader from Star Wars films. Or Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to war in Iraq.

Best Story Wins

This brief overview of “field-based warfare” brings us to the latest incident in New York again featuring in a starring role Mullah Omar as leader of the “Pakistan Taliban.”

But first a brief review of three recent events.

Keep in mind that when waging game theory warfare, it is not the incident but the reaction that advances the narrative. The cascade of reactions to an incident is what gains traction for a storyline when manipulating minds in that “field.” See: Can the U.S. Beat Israel at Their Game?

The first incident was the December 2007 murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazim biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice that the return to Pakistan of the corrupt but widely popular Bhutto was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.”

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had announced that an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine was critical to end the conflicts in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan. That comment made him a target of those for whom that occupation has long served a strategic purpose.

Bhutto’s death was blamed on the Pakistan Taliban. The reaction resulted in the replacement of Musharraf with Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt husband. By our alliance with Zardari, the U.S. could be cast as extending its corrupting influence in the region. See: What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?; Israel’s Role in Terrorism

In August 2008, Ashkenazim General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Israeli arms and training. That out-of-theater crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) pledged to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Russia was then negotiating an energy agreement with Iran.

The incident in Georgia was the second of three prepare-the-mind events. Third was “India’s 911” in November 2008 when extremists recruited from the tribal regions of western Pakistan killed 173 and wounded more than 300 in Mumbai, India’s financial center.

The attack included a hostel run by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York. In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced: “Our world is under attack.”

Livni then argued: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.” By its exclusion, Pakistan was indicted.

By standing “shoulder to shoulder” with India (the signature phrase of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon), Tel Aviv associated India with Israel’s victim status.

The response to that attack drew Pakistani troops to its eastern border with India. That reaction left its Western tribal regions less well guarded and thereby plausibly more susceptible to extremist infiltrators from Afghanistan joining the Pakistan Taliban.

By May 2009, Israel had delivered to India its first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning & Control Systems (AWACS). That arms sale shifted the balance of conventional air power in the region. That military alliance also confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….” See: The India/Israel Alliance

Whose Pakistan Taliban?

Now let’s turn to the latest incident—also attributed to the Pakistan Taliban. Keep in mind that when waging war on the battlefield of the public’s shared mind space, the power of association is routinely deployed as a form of weaponry.

The “Times Square terrorist” incident occurred at 6:30 pm on May 1^st. That same day, reports emerged from London that more than 3,000 European Jews, including prominent intellectuals, had signed a petition speaking out against Israeli settlement policies and warning that systematic support for the Israeli government is dangerous.

That statement garnered high praise from those aware of how peace in the Middle East has long been kept beyond reach by Israeli agent provocateurs. Serial provocations around the settlements issue have long been a reliable catalyst for well-timed outrage that, in turn, is cited to again defer resolution of a six-decade conflict. See: What Next for Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

Bernard-Henri Levy, a high-profile French writer, led that European effort. That development appeared quite positive when first announced. Then Levy began to appear as a commentator on television following the “Times Square Terrorism” as that incident was portrayed on the cover of Newsweek, aWashington Post magazine.

Rather than promote the petition and the urgent need to solve the settlements issue, instead Levy offered his appraisal of the Times Square incident. He described in depth how he studied what went on “inside the mind” of a Muslim Evil Doer who in 2002 slit the throat and then beheaded an American-Jewish reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The Levy analysis injected into the “field” the most visually provocative image of the War on Terrorism featuring the epitome of both violence and extremist intolerance. Levy’s well-timed on-camera recitation refreshed in the public mindset the disturbing imagery of a Muslim Evil Doer who brutally murdered and dismembered a young professional with a pregnant wife.

Levy’s described for the television viewer the mental state of the psychopathic Muslim profiled in his book Who Killed Danny Pearl? Where did this evil doing occur? In Pakistan.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped from the Shadows?

As Levy’s account was injected into the field at the same time as the Time Square Bomber, the U.N. Security Council then had under review a 15-year old proposal for a treaty that would create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

The timing of these developments could be coincidental. Yet consider another possibility.

Assume your numbers are few but your ambitions vast. The confirmed facts point to the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy from the shadows with phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a Muslim Evil Doer that had nothing to do with that incident. Is it possible that this latest incident had a strategic purpose that is not yet clear to the public?

If, as the facts suggest, advisers to President Barack Obama are advancing a pro-Israeli agenda, could the timing of this incident be a means to exert influence from outside the White House?

Could that be because their influence inside the White House has become apparent? See: Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

The facts suggest that Obama, as U.S. commander-in-chief, is feeling pressure from the military to change our policy on Israel. Did the timing of these “out of theatre” events help finesse that issue by refreshing a storyline that calls for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism?

Was this latest incident timed to provide a rationale with which our policy-makers can preempt Pentagon concerns about the effect of U.S.-Israeli policy on our troops in the field? Note the military concerns described in Foreign Policy: The Petraeus Briefing – Israel Endangering U.S. Troops

How long ago would pro-Israeli White House insiders have known about the pending U.N. Security Council consideration of a treaty that could force Israel to forfeit its nuclear weapons? When was the Times Square Terrorist recruited by the “Pakistan Taliban”?

Is this how a war-making narrative is sustained, using well-timed crises staged in a nonlinear fashion such that their common origin is diffused in the “field”?

Could that explain the well-timed murder of Benazir Bhutto by the “Pakistan Taliban”? Could that explain the well-timed destabilizing impact on Pakistan of the recent “911” attack on Mumbai using operatives recruited and trained in Pakistan? Was this too the “Pakistan Taliban”?

In a televised May 10^th interview, General Stanley McChrystal explained that winning the current war in the Middle East requires a “change in perception.” Is that the purpose of these well-timed crises? Are they meant to refresh our fear of the “Pakistan Taliban”?

The displacement of facts with false beliefs induced us to invade Iraq consistent with a narrative that was revitalized by this latest well-timed “incident.” Is the American public again being manipulated by those skilled at managing perceptions?

Is this incident a high profile example of field-based warfare being waged on America? Are we in the midst of another psy-ops?

Is that possible? Could there be a sufficient critical mass of like-minded operatives in positions of influence capable of inducing enough minds to freely embrace another war that is not in our interest?

Is it possible in the Information Age that psy-ops could operate on such a scale? Is there sufficient collateral support in key decision-making quarters to again deceive an entire nation in plain sight yet, to date, with legal impunity?

Pakistan has long been an ally of the U.S. So was Iraq. Likewise Iran was an ally in recent history. Where are we to find this purported “Axis of Evil”? Does its source reside in nation-states? Or does this evil reside in the mental state of those skilled at manipulating the minds of others to wage war on false pretenses?

War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented

The answers to those questions may need to await an official, good faith investigation of the three-decade experience of Mel Rockefeller who has been profiling the common source of this duplicity—from the inside—since 1982. That experience remains ongoing.

In March 2001, he and Indonesian intelligence chief Arie Kumaat were not then able to detect the pre-staging of the mass murder on U.S. soil that emerged six months later.

After that provocation and before the manipulated response (the invasion of Iraq), Kumaat agreed to schedule a meeting for Rockefeller with former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid. A religious and political leader of 80 million moderate Muslim men, Wahid had recently presided over the world’s largest Muslim nation.

Rockefeller knew the Wahid meeting would lead to a meeting with Malaysian president Mahathir bin Mohamad. This Muslim leader was familiar with the common source of many of today’s troubles, including a well timed attempt to topple the Malaysian Minister of Defense.

Plus Kumaat had uncovered a multi-billion dollar Israeli bribe that would have destabilized the entire Indonesia government reportedly organized with the help of a nonprofit funded by American George Soros. See: The Truth About America and Pakistan

With all two Muslim nations appraised of the common Israeli source of this manipulation, could the invasion of Iraq have been stopped?

With that knowledge, could a “coalition of the willing” have been assembled to support that U.S.-led invasion? Would other nations have been energized to resist? We may never know.

Soon after agreeing to set that meeting with Wahid, Arie Kumaat was poisoned. He received a state funeral in January 2002, four months after the provocation that took the U.S. to war against Muslim Evil Doers.

Though the official account of his death cited a heart attack, a family autopsy reportedly detected the poison used to induce a heart attack. That account was confirmed in an interview with Kumaat’s son, Henrie. See: Zionist Dominance in the Obama Presidency

The People in Between

In an October 2007 speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates identified “the people in between” as the most problematic combatant when waging “unconventional warfare.” The facts suggest that such warfare is only “unconventional” for those targeted. For the aggressor, this form of warfare is standard operating procedure.

Those waging war from the shadows imbed their operatives in that realm “in between” a targeted populace and the facts they require for a system of governance reliant on informed consent. By displacing facts with false beliefs, mental manipulation can proceed in plain sight.

Between a deceived American public and the facts they required to assess whether to wage war in Iraq were legions of pro-Israeli operatives. Many of those operatives are imbedded in media, a key in-between domain essential for success in field-based warfare.

Thus, for example, the critical agenda-advancing role played by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. He even branded his broadcasting set “The Situation Room” to lend White House-associative credibility on a network branded as “the most trusted name in news.” See: Israel’s Fifth Column: The People in Between

Likewise New York Times “reporter” Judith Miller who featured on its front page the false intelligence provided by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the credible-sounding “Iraqi National Congress.” This Iraqi expatriate and London-based Iraqi liar served as a reliable and pliable Israeli asset developed over two decades by pro-Israeli operatives, including Richard Perle who in 2001 became chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board.

This form of Information Age treason could only succeed if hidden in plain sight. Today’s fast-paced velocity of information ensures that media impressions now shape political agendas. Thus the importance of “the people in between” in manipulating U.S. foreign policy.

Out-of-Theater Repositioning

Pro-Israelis in the Obama administration could no longer directly shape Middle East policy after General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, complained to the Joint Chiefs about the adverse impact of the U.S.-Israeli relationship on U.S. interests in the region.

Could that explain the utility of an “out of theater” incident to refresh the narrative? That may explain the timing of an incident in a high-profile venue (Times Square) featuring a power-of-association component (New York) that could plausibly be attributed to Pakistan as a source of violent Islamic extremists.

The control wielded in Washington by the Israel lobby remains little known to mainstream Americans. As our representatives in what was meant to be a representative system of governance, the U.S. Congress now epitomizes “the people in between.” See: How the Israel Lobby Controls U.S.

The accountability of Congress to the broader population—or even to our troops in the field—is now out of the question. Meanwhile those who deceived the U.S. to war in Iraq are working to induce us to war in Iran—or Pakistan.

If the consensus storyline cannot be sustained, the consequences are clear. If the War on Terrorism loses credibility, the resulting stability will provide Americans with the breathing space required to identify the real enemy. And to begin rooting out a deeply entrenched treason.

This Can Only End Badly

Meanwhile business-as-usual continues in plain sight. The day after Israel was admitted to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charged that Iran is provoking Israel to wage war with Syria.

When President Shimon Peres denied this week that Israel would go to war with Syria, he meant that Syria is the likely rationale for the next crisis. When on May 11^th he declared in Moscow that nuclear terror is the world’s greatest threat, rest assured that game theory war planners in Tel Aviv have in place a plausible plan for blaming such an incident on Iran-backed Hezbollah.

The same day that “proximity talks” began, the Palestinians confirmed that Israel had another settlement underway in East Jerusalem. The next day, the Israeli minister for public safety announced that Israel will demolish Arab homes in East Jerusalem.

On May 12^th (“Jerusalem Day”), the U.S.-based Conference of Presidents (of Major American Jewish Organizations) took a full-page ad in The New York Times to proclaim “Jerusalem in the Heart of the Jewish People.” Meanwhile, Netanyahu announced from Israel, “We will never divide Jerusalem.”

When this Likud Party leader calls for peace while insisting on conditions that make peace impossible, rest assured that more provocations are planned.

The latest storyline in search of traction: Syrian-provided poison-gas missiles pose a threat to Israel from Lebanon-based, Iran-backed Hezbollah. As the war on terrorism is rebranded, it is not yet clear how the Pakistan Taliban will be worked into the narrative.

All we know for certain is that Muslims will remain the Evil Doers in this storyline. And that Israelis will once again be cast as hapless victims.

Anticipating a tactical need to collapse another government, Israeli politicians are in discussions about an alliance between the Kadima Party and the Labor Party. When the latest Likud coalition falters, the resulting political instability will inject into the field the requisite “entropy” for Israel to continue on its current path without a government with whom other nations can negotiate.

See: What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

What is the endgame for those once again defrauding the nation that befriended this enclave six decades ago and has since defended their interests without question?

What happens when Americans understand the depth and duration of this duplicity? And when the U.S. military confirms the common source of this ongoing treason?

What happens when a long-deceived global public grasps what this entangled alliance has cost them in blood and treasure over the past 62 years?

What Next for The People in Between?

The most recent Sunday edition of The New York Times is filled not with hopes of a nuclear-free Middle East but with fears of the future horrors inflicted on Americans by Muslim Evil Doers.

That storyline is reinforced on television by a reminder of the horrors inflicted on Danny Pearl. Meanwhile it’s made to appear that pro-Israeli moderates are busily working to restrain extremists in the Likud Party. That too is part of the storyline.

The Big Question is this: is anyone still buying it? Meanwhile the Big Sell continues.

The Sunday New York Times featured page after page marketing fear and insecurity:

• The front page featured a large photo of U.S.-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awaki who advised a series of alleged Evil Doers whose photos were also prominently displayed:
  • Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable

• Umar Farouck Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber. See: Christmas Day Crotch Bomber tied to Israel, FBI

• Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber See: Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler

The featured article consumed two full inside pages. There was no news coverage—none—of the pending U.N. proposal to free the Middle East of nuclear weapons.

The front page of the commentary section in the national paper of record included two major articles. The first article warned that this enemy “may mutate and even grow.” The second analysis explored “when to suspend fear.”

The book review section featured “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England,” and “Heidegger—The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.”

The only mention of the pending U.N. proposal for ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons appeared in the lead editorial titled “Fixing the Treaty.” The editors’ assessment of Israel giving up its nuclear weapons: “That is not going to happen any time soon.”

To successfully wage war in the shared field of consciousness, an enemy must hide in plain sight. Otherwise, those deceived cannot be induced to believe.

There lies the fast-emerging peril for those complicit in this ongoing treason. As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, its operatives are becoming apparent.

A Vietnam veteran, Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide. He served for seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. He is widely published in the trade, popular and academic press. His latest book is ‘Guilt By association.