Russians out of South Ossetia?
Americans out of Iraq and Afghanistan!

The USA's efforts to stop a European/Russian superstate
By Christopher King 10 August 2008
http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20080810

Christopher King argues that the "US and NATO are behind the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia" but have misjudged Russian resolve. He says it is time for Europe to distance itself from NATO, which has become a US tool, and to choose whether it wants Russia as a friend or an enemy.

The European Union needs to re-evaluate its relationship to both the United States and NATO.

I've said recently that US plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic are designed to cause trouble between Europe and Russia as well as distracting Europe from US Middle Eastern outrages. These missiles, under US control, are supposed to protect Europe and if you believe that, you probably believe in the tooth fairy. US negotiations for these missiles don't appear to be going very well since the Poles and Czechs don't much like the idea of being targeted in response by Russian missiles and the Russians have been musing about installing their missiles in Cuba for a re-run of the Cuban missile crisis and near nuclear war of the 1960s. That would not be popular with US voters. What do do? Are there any trouble spots that can be stoked up to show Russia as an aggressor? What about Georgia and the South Ossetia separatists on Russia's southern border?

So we've arrived at having a US/NATO-sponsored provocation with Georgia invading its breakaway semi-independent province. South Ossetia's declaration of independence was supported by almost all its residents. The South Ossetian argument is that if the West and NATO supported Kosovo's independence from Serbia, they should support its independence from Georgia. That sounds reasonable. No? Of course, no! The difference is that South Ossetia wants ties with Russia and the US has been pressing for Georgia to join NATO.

Condoleeza Rice predictably, was quick to call on the Russians to withdraw from South Ossetia. President Bush says sanctimoniously that Georgia is a sovereign nation and that its territorial integrity should be respected. That is pretty rich (hypocritical) as we say in the UK. Before Condoleeza or anyone else in the US takes that position they could prevail on President Bush to leave Iraq and Afghanistan where they are looting oil, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, driving millions of refugees from their homes and creating general disaster half a world away from their own country.

While she is about it, Condoleeza could also call on the Israelis to leave Palestinian and Syrian territory outside their 1967 borders and allow the ethnically cleansed Palestinians and their descendants to return and re-claim their property that was stolen by the Israelis.

To return to South Ossetia and Georgia, we should note that NATO rejected South Ossetia's referendum in favour of independence. "What's this? What does a national referendum, particularly in a non-NATO country, have to do with NATO?" you might wonder; "Isn't NATO our warrior arm, dedicated to defend us against armed aggression?" Not any more. It's now a political organization as well. The EU countries should seriously consider whether it is a good idea to allow its military arm to make political decisions, particularly when it is driven by US rather than European interests.

NATO has also taken on a role in formulating conspiracy theories against Russia, for example Russia's "Gas OPEC plans", reported by the Financial Times. There seems to be no evidence for this whatever and even if it were true, (a) What does it have to do with NATO and (b) Would it matter more than our existing oil OPEC? Russia still wants to sell its gas and can do so on any terms it wishes whether NATO or the EU like them or not.

The new non-Communist free-market Russia, that the US and Europe wanted and got, is a disaster for NATO because it no longer has an enemy. The only way to save careers and maintain funding is for NATO officers to create enemies and new threats. Its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is no longer popular so a prod at Russia through South Ossetia has doubtless been designed to produce a response that can be spun as Russian aggression.

The new Russia is also a disaster for the US. Russia is creating strong economic ties with Europe. There is serious talk of a free trade agreement between the EU and Russia and the possibility of Russia becoming an EU member is being talked about. Russia is, after all, historically a part of Europe. You can imagine how the idea of such an economic superpower is perceived in the US with its declining oil reserves and economy.

As matters stand, rather than having the purely defensive joint military force with the US that was its original purpose, Europe finds itself supporting, through NATO, the US's aggressive foreign policies in the Middle East. Worse still, NATO is formenting trouble between Europe and Russia, which should be thought of as a valuable friend and future EU partner, rather than an enemy.

To be blunt, NATO has become a tool for the extension of US influence and foreign policy. This is argued cogently by F. William Engdahl whose article I have resisted plagiarising. One might consider why Finland rejects NATO membership. The main reason given by opponents of membership in a poll 18 months ago is that Finland could be drawn into conflicts that have no direct bearing on their country. This seems to be a polite refusal to fight wars for the US and Israel. Indeed, Israel has recently joined a NATO exercise and Italy's defence minister has proposed that Israel should join NATO. Certainly it might, when it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, abandons its settlements on stolen Palestinian land and gives right of return to the Palestinians. Alternatively, a single state with right of return and equal rights might do.

The evidence is clear. NATO has become not only counter-productive to European interests but an immediate danger to the EU as an arm of the US military-industrial complex. The South Ossetia conflict is an unmistakable warning. The US and NATO provocateurs have shown their hand and have gone too far. Russia has acted with commendable restraint in relation to the US's outrageous attempts to bribe new EU countries to accept its missiles on Russia's borders. There can be no doubt that the US and NATO are behind the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia but have misjudged Russian restraint for unwillingness to act. What they now have is called, I believe, "blowback". The EU needs to reassess NATO from fundamental principles of its defensive needs. The current senior command of NATO has clearly been politicized by the US. This is unacceptable as also is NATO's current role as tool of the US.

The EU should make some decisions about its links and future with Russia, its economically important and militarily powerful neighbour. The choice is simple: to have Russia as a friend in the short term and EU member eventually or make it an enemy. It is clear that the USA's military-industrial complex needs Russia as an enemy, not only to stay in business but to prevent a European Union/Russian superstate developing. Europe needs to pursue its own peaceful interests, ideally keeping a good relationship with the US while working with Russia toward closer economic integration. If the US does not like that, it is too bad. The US has used up its global credibility and goodwill.

Russia has had a bad press in the West for the last 60 years, not always undeserved. We should recall, however, that the man who set Russia and the Soviet Union on its post-war course, created Churchill's "iron curtain", the nuclear arms race and the repressive character of the Soviet post-war state, was not Russian at all. Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, otherwise known as Stalin, was Georgian, born in Gori, just south of South Ossetia.

Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing.
He lives in London, UK.
Copyright © 2000-2008 Redress Information & Analysis.
All rights reserved.

Iraq: Has the troop surge worked?

Robert Fox v Simon Tisdall
The Guardian, Tuesday 06 August 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/iraq.military

Robert Fox to Simon Tisdall:
I am always sceptical about the success of specific ground operations, heralded from Washington and London in the terribly tangled mess of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. General David Petraeus launched his "surge" with some 35,000 extra troops in the spring of last year. Now, some of the extra troops are being brought home. Instead of victory, Washington talks about "success". Violence against US forces is down, it is claimed - and this is undoubtedly true. The government in Baghdad under Nouri al-Maliki is stronger and the Iraq army has been growing in numbers and capability, and performing creditably in several areas, most notably in Basra.

But problems remain, and this has been underlined by the recent suicide bombings in Kirkuk and Baghdad that killed at least 55 and injured more than 250. The targeting and tactics of the attacks suggests the hand of al-Qaida - the bombs were aimed at Shias in a religious procession and a demonstration of Kurds in Kirkuk. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian founder of "Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia", preached against the "axis of heresy" linking Kurds, Shias and the American invader as the band of enemies against the true followers of Islam in Iraq. Zarqawi was betrayed and then killed by the Americans in 2006, but these recent bombs suggest his legacy lives on and al-Qaida is far from beaten by the Americans and the Sunni tribal militias.

So, I think we can only say that the Petraeus surge is still very much a work in progress, and cannot be judged a magic ingredient that has suddenly turned the tide for the Americans in Iraq.

Simon Tisdall to Robert Fox:
To help understand what the "the surge" has (or has not) achieved, it is useful to cast one's mind back to the summer and autumn of 2006 when it appeared, to many if not most observers, that the US and its coalition partners were losing the battle to secure Iraq and that the country was sliding into a state of civil war. Coalition and civilian casualties were running at record highs, sectarian warfare following the bombing of the Shia shrines earlier that year was out of control, al-Qaida, led by the still extant Zarqawi, was striking with apparent impunity, and the isolated central government in Baghdad was powerless to act. Iraq appeared to be on the brink of anarchy encompassing all but Kurdish-controlled areas in the north and east.

To make matters worse, Iran's al-Quds Revolutionary Guards operatives were busily stirring the pot, building up leverage especially in the south, and aiding those militants in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia, who were intent on forcing the Americans out. Under mounting pressure to admit defeat and throw in the towel, Bush acknowledged the gravity of the situation by ordering Pentagon and other policy reviews that autumn. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group was an independent, contemporaneous attempt to find a strategy that worked, or at least would cease to fail. In the end, what emerged was a decision to make one more big push to secure Iraq by sending in additional forces ("the surge"), rather than begin a phased withdrawal (which was what most people at the time expected would happen). I'm proud to say the Guardian exclusively revealed the surge decision on November 16 2006 subsequently confirmed by the White House.

It is incontrovertibly the case that the surge decision in November 2006 marked a critical turning point in the history of the US intervention in Iraq. Since that moment, the overall security situation, broadly defined, has slowly and unevenly improved, to the point where we can now realistically look forward to an Iraqi government taking primary responsibility for its citizens' safety and Bush can start cutting troop levels, as he did last week (Thursday July 31). This is not a victory, but neither is it the defeat that not so very long ago looked both certain and inevitable.

Robert Fox to Simon Tisdall:
Undoubtedly, there have been improvements in security on the ground and an increase in capacity by the Iraqi army and the tribal militias now supporting the Malaki government in the Sunni triangle. But I think we have to look much further before we make judgments about turning points in the American strategy in Iraq. Sure, it may be a turning point, but not quite in the political direction intended. Rather like Chou en Lai being asked his view on the success of the French Revolution, I tend to think it is too early to make a definitive judgment on the success of the surge. Obviously, it is in the interest of the US presidential candidates to be positive about developments in Iraq - for both, it allows some much-needed room for manoeuvre to rebalance forces there and bring large numbers home.

There is a very big "but" to all this, however. The surge is not entirely, nor even mainly, a military stratagem. It is political, and aimed at achieving America's political goal in Iraq - to achieve a stable, pro-American, functioning, unitary state at the heart of the Gulf security region. On this the jury is still out. There is still a lack of capacity in Malaki's government. The police force is weak and corrupt, and seems trapped in a cycle of underachievement. The Sunni tribal associations may be battling al-Qaida elements and paying lip service to the American line in order to get weapons, training and funds, but they are not pro-American, nor even pro a Shia-dominated government like al-Maliki's coalition. In the long run, they will turn away from the American-British axis. This is the opposite of the strategic aim of the surge.

With operation Charge of the Knights, the Iraq army and government have achieved a real and significant success. By all accounts, life in Basra is much changed, and for the better. But with this important tactical success, it should not be assumed that the problem of the Shia militias is resolved. The Mahdi militias of Moqtada al-Sadr appear weakened but not finished, down but not out. The rejectionism of the Sadrists, therefore, still appears unresolved. Additionally, there appears to be a serious threat of the dissident groups, on both sides of the sectarian divide, fragmenting into a perennial criminality.

Simon Tisdall to Robert Fox:
It's sensible to be cautious about long-terms gains occasioned by the "surge". The value, effectiveness and longevity of what has been achieved are open to question, as I wrote in my previous reply. Nothing in life is for ever and that applies with knobs on in Iraq. It could all go pear-shaped. Moqtada and his militiamen could make a comeback, the Sunni Awakening groups could go back to sleep, or turn on their US allies of convenience. Maliki could fail ... it's all possible. A senior US military official, a big proponent of the surge, told me recently that "progress will not be linear" and the "enemy remains formidable". Inserting caveats about future developments is necessary analytical practice in such a volatile situation.

But to quote loosely another Chinese luminary, Confucius, "he who walks in the middle of the road gets knocked down by traffic travelling both ways". I'm in the right carriageway when I say I believe that a positive change for the better has been achieved that will have lasting benefits. Three reasons (but not the only ones) why I think this are:

1) Iran, after years of malignly stirring the pot since 2003, has backed off since last autumn, having apparently decided that it is in its interests to support the much-strengthened Maliki government and, particularly, its timetable for an American withdrawal. Certainly, Tehran will hope to manipulate Maliki, but may find this harder as times goes by;
2) Gulf Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia, are moving towards normalisation of relations, debt forgiveness and reconstruction collaboration with Iraq - despite its Shia-led government. This trend contradicts the "polarisation and disintegration" scenarios for Iraq that were so popular 18 months ago;
3) US military reports say al-Qaida leaders are leaving Iraq and diverting new recruits away from the country. They're doing this because the security environment has got so much tougher.

Unfortunately, they're not laying down their arms. Instead, they're heading for Aghanistan.

Robert Fox to Simon Tisdall:
I think the real test of the surge is coming in the next few months. If the Americans pull back too soon, it can all fall apart. I am slightly more wary about Iran than you, Simon. I think Iranian policy towards Iraq, and the powerful Shia factions and parties, seems quite opaque. One minute, they seem to back either Hakim/SCIRI (ISCI) and Badr, then pull back. Moqtada has some clerical backing in Quom, notably from Grand Ayatollah Haeriri. Tehran seems to think it can manage Maliki. After all, they told him to avoid signing up to a permanent US presence in Iraq under the new status of forces agreement that will follow the UN mandate when it runs out at the end of the year. The test of stability will come with the provincial elections due soon, which will see a real distribution of power and spoils, particularly in the south.

The Americans will have to say the surge has been a success because they cannot sustain present force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. The British will also try to claim a piece of the success with the "turn around" in Basra. They are desperate to be gone and I understand that Gordon Brown has arranged with Washington and Baghdad for the bulk of British forces to be away from Iraq by the beginning of next June, when an American division and headquarters will move into Basra. By that time, it will be clear if the surge has passed its main test - whether it has ensured that Iraq can hold together as a functioning state.

Simon Tisdall to Robert Fox:
The "surge" is already over in military terms. The additional combat brigades deployed by Bush last year have all gone home, and overall troop levels are down to pre-surge levels. Bush's announcement last week on cutting the duration of operational tours, and his acceptance of "time horizons" for a withdrawal, follow on from the official US assessment that the surge has worked and indeed has been a success. The surge's main military proponent on the ground, General David Petraeus, has been promoted to CentCom, as have several of his key counterinsurgency advisers. The current offensive in Diyala suggests there is still much work to be done. And Kirkuk could still blow up at any time. But you are right about Baghdad, Basra and the Sunni Triangle. They are much improved security-wise.

Politically speaking, I agree the longer-term success of the surge is still an open question. The provincial elections due this year may be postponed, mostly due to Kurdish objections about Kirkuk's future. That could prevent, or discourage, large-scale Sunni Arab participation. After their boycotting of previous polls, it was hoped the Sunnis would get involved in the political process this time, thereby increasing its credibility. This, in turn, could delay general elections next year. Other unpredictable political factors include the Iranian presidential election campaign and whether Ahmadinejad wins again; and the US presidential poll, with both main candidates using Iraq for campaign purposes (witness McCain's jibes about Obama's supposed lack of interest in meeting fallen warriors).

Making Iraq a united, functioning country also requires a lasting settlement of the oil question - that is, who gets and controls which bit of the vast oil and gas reserves. Opening the industry to foreign ownership and exploitation, as recently proposed, could further complicate things politically.

The surge was never a panacea. It was, initially at least, a last desperate attempt to stop a haemorrhage with a large sticking plaster. It has worked better than most expected. Will the bleeding stop? Increasingly, the message coming from the US is: Iraqis must decide for themselves.

What a pity Bush did not take that view about Saddam Hussein pre-2003.

Robert Fox to Simon Tisdall
I agree that the surge is drawing to a close as the extra brigades sent in by David Petraeus are now being brought home. The question is what happens next, both for Iraq and America. The surge had to come to an end because the next president, whether McCain or Obama, cannot maintain such a high level of defence expenditure - over half a trillion dollars per annum, and now greater than the aggregated defence budgets of the rest of the world. Moreover, a lot of the equipment of the ground forces is used up and needs replacing urgently. The US government is currently devoting over $100bn on the "reset" programme to bring in replacement equipment.

In the UK, we are faced with the same phenomenon, though you wouldn't know it. The equipment of the forces in Helmand and Basra, not least the helicopter force, is under colossal strain. It is unlikely to be replaced sufficiently with new kit at the rate required because the equipment budget is under such severe strain. Moreover, as we have both noted, both the UK and US are likely to have to reinforce in Afghanistan soon - particularly if the Canadians reduced their forces in southern Afghanistan and the Dutch pull out, as many in their parliaments and much of their press are now demanding.

Muddled system for 42-day detentions could hit trials, say peers

Sam Coates, Chief political Correspondent, The Times. Tuesday 05 August 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4460757.ece

The Prime Minister is facing a showdown with peers this autumn over plans to extend detention without charge to 42 days after a Lords committee described them as muddled and said that they could lead to the collapse of terrorism trials.

In a report today the House of Lords Constitution Committee says that the proposals - under which Parliament would vote on allowing an extension to the pre-charge time limit beyond 28 days - blur the lines between the judiciary and the legislature. The plan "arguably risks undermining the rights of fair trial for the individuals concerned".

The Counter-Terrorism Bill is expected to return to a House of Lords committee in early October, followed by a full vote later that month.

In June MPs passed the measure by nine votes, in the face of a Labour backbench revolt and Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition. At the Bill's second reading in the Lords the vast majority of speakers opposed the proposal, Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former Director-General of MI5, making a pointed intervention.

Today's report gives further arguments to the Bill's opponents in the Upper House. The Labour rebellion may include Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former Lord Chancellor, and Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney-General.

Under the legislation, MPs and peers would vote on whether to grant a temporary "reserve power" for the Home Secretary, allowing courts to authorise detention for up to 42 days were there an operational need. Although the reserve power order would not be specifically about an individual case, politicians would "have to tread a tightrope" to avoid prejudicing any trial, the peers say in today's report.

"We are unconvinced that the Government have properly thought through this aspect of their proposed scheme."

The committee was also concerned that a judge could have to decide whether to extend a suspect's detention within hours of a "highly politically charged debate" in Parliament.

"There is a risk that this will be perceived to undermine the independence of the judiciary."

The Government's desire to increase democratic accountability was understandable, but risked "conflating the roles of Parliament and the judiciary, which would be quite inappropriate".

The peers added: "Far from being a system of checks and balances, this is a recipe for confusion that places on Parliament tasks that it cannot effectively fulfil and arguably risks undermining the rights of fair trial for the individuals concerned."

Plans for the Home Secretary to brief the chairmen of three key parliamentary committees confidentially about the need for reserve power orders were "untenable" and should be scrapped.

The peers also said the "elaborate" decision-making process would give a far greater opportunity for legal challenges. "It is a weakness of the Bill, not a strength, that it is likely to lead to high-profile litigation during a time when the response to terrorism will be a matter of high controversy," the report said.

The peers also expressed concerns about the Home Secretary being given power to direct that sensitive inquests should be heard without a jury.

In a letter to the committee, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, the Security Minister, signalled a government concession, stating that a "sunset clause" whereby the measure would need to be renewed after a certain time was being considered.

Lord Goodlad, the committee's Conservative chairman, said: "We are concerned that some of the proposals being put forward by the Government in the Counter-Terrorism Bill would place inappropriate responsibilities on Parliament." Politicians would be asked to act in a "quasi-judicial manner" in deciding the pros and cons of extending the limit beyond 28 days.

"Considering that any debate will be highly political in nature and any vote may well be whipped by the political parties, we are deeply concerned that the independence of the judiciary may appear to be undermined and that trials may be prejudiced," Lord Goodlad said.

Let's Speak the Truth About Afghanistan

Eric Margolis. 30 July 2008 "Huffington Post" NEW YORK
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20386.htm

During his triumphant European tour, Senator Barack Obama again urged NATO's members to send more troops to Afghanistan and called the conflict there, "the central front in the war on terror." Europe's response ranged from polite evasion to downright frosty.

It is unfortunate that Obama has adopted President George Bush's misleading terminology, "war on terror," to describe the conflict between the United States and anti-American groups in the Muslim world. Like many Americans, he and his foreign policy advisors are sorely misinformed about the reality of Afghanistan.

One understands Obama's need to respond with martial élan to rival John McCain's chest-thumping about "I know how to win wars." Polls put McCain far ahead of Obama when it comes to being a war leader. But Obama's recent proposal to send at least 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his threats to attack Pakistan's territory, and warnings about Islamabad's nuclear forces, show poor judgment and lack of knowledge.

The United States is no longer "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan, as Bush, Obama and McCain insist. The 2001 U.S. invasion was a legitimate operation against al-Qaeda, a group that properly fit the role of a "terrorist organization." But, contrary to the White House's wildly inflated claims that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was a worldwide conspiracy, it never numbered more than 300 hard core members. Bin Laden and his jihadis long ago scattered into all corners of Pakistan and elsewhere. Only a handful remain in Afghanistan.

Today, 80,000 U.S. and NATO troops are waging war against the Taliban. Having accompanied the mujahidin fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's, witnessed the birth of Taliban, and penned a book about the Afghan struggle, "War at the Top of the World," I can attest that Taliban is not a terrorist organization as the U.S. and its allies wrongly claim.

Taliban was created in the early 1990's during the chaos and civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. Drawn from Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan, who make up half that nation's population, Taliban was a religious movement that took up arms to battle the Afghan Communists, stop the wide-scale rape of Afghan women, and halt banditry and the drug trade. Both Pakistan and the U.S. secretly aided Taliban.

The ranks of Taliban were filled with young religious students -- "talibs" -- and veteran mujahidin fighters whom the U.S. had armed and hailed as "freedom fighters." By 1996, Taliban took Kabul, driving out the Northern Alliance, the old rump of the Afghan Communist Party and its Russian-backed Tajik and Uzbek tribal supporters. Taliban, most of whom were mountaineers, imposed a draconian medievalist culture that followed traditional Pashtun tribal customs and Islamic law.

The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.

Everything that happens in Afghanistan is based on tribal politics. Taliban came from the heart of the Pashtun tribal grouping, the world's largest tribe which also accounts for up to 20% of Pakistan's population. Tribal and clan loyalties trump all political alliances.

The Taliban leadership had nothing to do with 9/11, a plot that, according to European prosecutors, was hatched in Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan. Nor did it have anything to do with subsequent attacks ascribed to al-Qaeda. After 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell vowed to published a White paper demonstrating Osama bin Laden's culpability in the attacks. Curiously, the promised paper was never issued.

Osama bin Laden was a national hero of the anti-Soviet struggle, wounded six times in battle. Taliban's collective leadership, in keeping with the Pashtun code of hospitality and honor, refused U.S. demands to hand over bin Laden until Washington issued a proper extradition request with evidence of bin Laden's guilt and promised him a fair trial. Washington refused to go through legal channels and, instead, invaded Afghanistan.

Fast forward to 2008. Today, U.S. and NATO forces are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan but a loose alliance of Pashtun warrior tribes whose resistance to foreign occupation is legendary. They are descendants of the same Pashtun mountain warriors who battled Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. All these invaders were eventually defeated.

Former U.S.-backed mujahidin "freedom-fighters," like the legendary Jallal Haqqani and Gulbadin Hekmatyar, have also joined Taliban in resisting foreign occupation.

The war now being waged in Afghanistan by the U.S. and NATO closely resembles 19th century colonial "pacifications" in which a puppet ruler is installed, a native mercenary army ("sepoys") hired to fight, and western troops sent to crush rebellious tribesmen who refuse to follow the diktat of the imperial power.

Equally important, the real objective of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan became recently evident. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul finally singed a long-discussed pipeline deal that will bring energy south from the new gas and oil Klondike of the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan's coast and India.

As the perceptive writer Kevin Phillips notes, U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan -- and Iraq -- have become "pipeline protection troops."

Barack Obama and John McCain had better look carefully before plunging deeper into the Afghan morass. In Afghanistan, we are not fighting "terrorists" but a medieval tribal people who just want to be left alone. This is an ugly little war about oil and gas, not freedom, democracy, or woman's rights. Every village we bomb, every wedding party our air powers massacres, brings new recruits to Taliban and its allies.

Even the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said last April that there could be no military solution to the war in Afghanistan, only a political one. That means negotiating with Taliban and political inclusion for the Pashtun people. But President Bush and candidates McCain and Obama are not listening.

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
Patrick Cockburn. The Independent, Thursday, 5 June 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq - a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 - 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing. The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Britain 'could talk to al-Qaeda'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7426874.stm
BBC News, Friday 30 May 2008.

The UK should not rule out talking to al-Qaeda in a strategy to end its campaign of violence, according to one of the country's most senior policemen.

Police Service of Northern Ireland chief Sir Hugh Orde told the Guardian talking to al-Qaeda was not unthinkable but "a question of timing".

He said 30 years tackling the IRA had taught him that policing alone was not enough to defeat terrorism.

The government has already rejected suggestions it negotiate with al-Qaeda.

Tough enforcement
Sir Hugh said it was important to maintain tough law enforcement against those involved in terrorist activity and that this would help bring them to the negotiating table.

He said IRA members had entered into negotiations with "a certain pragmatism" after realising their violent approach "wasn't ever going to work".

Sir Hugh cited his 2004 meeting with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams as an example of how one-time opponents can become partners in a peace process.

It is not the first time that senior establishment figures have raised the prospect of negotiations with al-Qaeda.

In March, former Downing Street chief of staff Jonathan Powell said that at some point in the future it might be necessary to start talks with the group.

Mr Powell, who helped broker the peace agreement in Northern Ireland, said the deal showed such negotiations could work.

At the time, the Foreign Office rejected the suggestion, saying the government would not talk to any group actively promoting its aims through violence.

Sir Hugh is regarded by some as a front-runner to be the next commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.