It’s the USA supplying the Taliban with weapons, not Russia

US Accusing Russia of Arming the Taliban, but They’re Awash in US Weapons

Russia is not an arms supplier for the Taliban, but the US is

Last week the CNN published a surreal story where it rolled out half a dozen battered AK-47s as “exclusive” evidence that Russia “may be arming the Taliban“.

Except of course the AK-47 is the most common combat rifle on the planet, and Afghanistan has been awash in them since at least the early 1980s when the US flooded the country with Soviet-made arms it purchased from Egypt.

In fact, using CNN’s logic there is far more proof that the US is arming the Taliban. At this point in time, the Taliban are awash in state of the art US-made weapons. They’re packing the M4 and M16 standard US rifles issued to regular US infantry, the FN SCAR rifle in use by US Special Forces, and besides that, night vision optics, laser scopes, and even up-armored Humvees, which are a Taliban favorite for their suicide car bomb attacks.

This US-made gear is new, and had been brought into country by the US itself. Actually, the US can not account for 700,000 firearms provided to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.

It is rather comical to see US generals and the pro-government media try to pin the blame for the US inability to win in Afghanistan on mythical Russian arms shipments when the US is itself a massive, indirect supplier of arms to the Taliban.

209654d7-fac0-4faa-84a1-c5df369f3eb7.jpg

Moscow is not supplying the Taliban for a variety of very good reasons, including the fact that it doesn’t much like the group. It actually prefers the Kabul government installed by the US, albeit it fears the US-picked regime can not guarantee stability.

That said if Russia, or anyone else, were to begin supplying the Taliban would that be so bad? For sure their social politics are horrible (not that Kabul is far better), but it is undeniable that they’re fighting against a foreign occupation. In the European tradition guerrilla resistance to occupation is lauded regardless of the politics of the fighter doing the resisting.

 

Job well done? Afghan Opium Production 40 Times Higher Since US-NATO Invasion

Afghan Opium Production 40 Times Higher Since US-NATO Invasion

Source: teleSUR

Since the U.S.-led NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the production of opium in the country has increased by 40 times according to Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service, or FSKN, fueling organized crime and widespread death.

The head of the FSKN, Viktor Ivanov, explained the staggering trend at a March U.N. conference on drugs in Afghanistan. Opium growth in Afghanistan increased 18 percent from 131, 000 hectares to 154, 000, according to Ivanov’s estimates.

“Afghan heroin has killed more than one million people worldwide since the ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ began and over a trillion dollars has been invested into transnational organized crime from drug sales,” said Ivanov according to Counter Current News.

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, opium production was banned by the Taliban, although it still managed to exist. The U.S. and its allies have been accused of encouraging and aiding in the opium production and the ongoing drug trafficking within the region. Ivanov claimed that only around 1 percent of the total opium yield in Afghanistan was destroyed and that the “international community has failed to curb heroin production in Afghanistan since the start of NATO’s operation.”

Afghanistan is thought to produce more than 90 percent of the world’s supply of opium, which is then used to make heroin and other dangerous drugs that are shipped in large quantities all over the world. Opium production provides many Afghan communities with an income, in an otherwise impoverished and war-torn country. The opium trade contributed around $US2.3 billion or around 19 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP in 2009 according to the U.N.

Around 43 percent of drugs produced in Afghanistan are moved through Pakistan, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

The Islamic State Group is reported to have recently taken over opium production and trafficking. In November, the extremist group was estimated to be earning over $US 1 billion from the opium trade. Profits also go to international drug cartels and money-laundering banks

How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

ERIC ZUESSE | 10.06.2017 | WORLD

How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

As a historian, I recognize that everything we know about history is from sources, and depends upon the reliability of those sources. Here, my main sources will be identified, and linked-to, so that any reader online can go directly to them, and won’t need to rely upon me but can go directly to the sources and evaluate them (my evidence) on one’s own.

First of all, however, reference will be made here to the three main countries (other than Afghanistan, which America first invaded for having allegedly perpetrated 9/11; and Iraq, which we next invaded for having allegedly perpetrated it) that have been accused, at different times, for allegedly having done those attacks; and anyone who wants to see my main previous article on each of these three country’s involvement or non-involvement in the 9/11 attacks, can access that presentation simply by clicking onto the respective link here for that given country:

ISRAEL

IRAN

SAUDI ARABIA

Regarding each one of those three ‘suspects’, my article there links directly to its sources, so that the reliance is, again, not to my own evidence, but to the evidence that others have presented.

Of course, the CIA and the George W. Bush White House have also been alleged to have been involved. Anyone who scours the present article and its sources will find plenty of evidence implicating them; but the U.S. regime cannot go to war against itself; and, so, only the foreign government that actually financed and organized the 9/11 attacks, will be the focus here.

However, none of that will make much sense outside of the broader context of the article that I wrote documenting how the Cold War had ended in 1991 only on the Russian side while it was secretly continued on the U.S. side, which resolutely aims to conquer Russia. As things have turned out subsequent to 1990, ‘the war against communism’ had really been just the sales-pitch for a campaign ultimately to achieve U.S. control over the entire world — it was not really an ideological war — on the American side. Understanding this, is basic to everything. And America’s ‘war against terrorism’ is (as is well documented in the excerpts below) likewise fake. But that’s being said only in the way of preparation — any reader here will make his decisions solely upon the basis of the evidence, which is given here.

Other than your reading those basics, the following will present the supplementary evidence to my case that Saudi Arabia — that’s to say, the Saudi government; that’s to say, the Saudi royal family — did it. This will be the relevant back-story, to how and why they did it, but all of it will be presented here by others, not by me.

My function in setting forth this history will simply be organizing these sources for the back-story, as follows:

——

Nafeez Ahmed, 2005, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism:

pp.3-5:

In the summer of 1979, a group of powerful elites from various countries gathered at an internationcal conference in Jerusalem to promote and exploit the idea of ‘international terrorism.’ The forum, officially known as the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT), was organized by Benjamin Netanyahu. … 

Over two decades ago, the JCIT established the ideological foundations for the ‘War on Terror.’ The JCIT’s defining theme was that international terrorism constituted an organized political movement whose ultimate origin was the Soviet Union. All terrorist groups were ultimately products of it, and could be traced back to, this single source, which — according to the JCIT — provided financial, military, and logistical assistance to disparate terrorist movements around the globe. The mortal danger to Western security and democracy posed by the worldwide scope of this international terrorist movement required an apropriate worldwide anti-terrorism offensive, consisting of the mutual coordination of Western military intelligence services.

But as Philip Paull documents extensively in his Masters thesis at San Francisco State University [and summarized in the link to this link], the JCIT’s own literature and use of source documentation was profoundly flawed [he shows they lied]. … 

Who exactly were the primary architects of the JCIT’s ‘international terrorism’ project? According to Paull, ‘present and former members of the Israeli and United States governments,… and reactionary British and French politicians and publicists.… [They] included: Menachim Begin,… Benzion Netanyahu, then Cornell University professor emeritus [and Benjamin Netanyahu’s father],… Paul Johnson,… Richard Pipes,… Ray S. Cline,… George Bush Sr. …

——

David B. Ottaway, 2008, The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar:

pp.41-44:

In the fall of 1979, Bandar took eight courses in international economics and politics, political theory, U.S. foreign policy, and Middle Eeast politics, scoring four As, and four B pluses, according to a transcript of his school records.6 Mystery still surrounds his master’s thesis, which focused on the domestic origins of U.S. foreign policy. Though apparently it was extremely well written, Bandar received only a B plus. West said in one of his daily diary entries that the thesis was ‘exceptionally good’. … But in another entry, he said ‘I cannot help but wonder how much help he might have had with it.’8 One person who almost certainly helped Bandar was Fred Dutton.

West kept Bandar’s father informed abut his progress. When he went to tell Sultan about Bandar’s final grades in June 1980, Sultan joked that Bandar had ‘spent a lot of money’ on getting his degree, in resonse to which West quiped, ‘That was the reason he received a B plus instead of an A in economics.’9 Even [President] Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, read the thesis, commenting that Bandar had learned a lot about the U.S. decision-making process and explained how it affected Saudi Arabia’s interests ‘in an interesting and imaginative way.’10…

Almost immediately after his return in June 1979, Bandar found himself called upon for help by President Carter once again. …

Secretly, Carter had already turned to the kingdom for help, calling in Bandar and asking him to deliver a message to [King] Fahd pleading for an increase in Saudi [oil] production. Fahd’s reply, according to Bandar, was ‘Tell my friend, the president of the United States of America, when they need our help, they will not be disappointed.’13 The king was true to his world. … 

West’s diary corroborates Bandar’s account of how Saudi Arabia came to Carter’s rescue. West wrote that on May 30 he began discussing with Hamilton Jordan what they could do to get Carter reelected. …

The success of this venture in oil diplomacy gave Bandar enormous standing in Washington. In early December 1979, Carter asked the prince to come to the White House so that he could thank him personally for the Saudi help in alleviating the U.S. energy crunch. … The meeting was kept secret even from the State Department. …

Bandar, still only a pilot and with no diplomatic standing, was becoming involved in every aspect of Carter’s Middle East policy.  …

pp.56-57:

The Saudi drive to export its religious influence eventually reached the United States. … In November 1980, a group of pro-Khomeni Iranian activists had seized control of the site [the Islamic Mosque and Cultural Center on Massachusetts Avenue] and ousted its Egyptian (Sunni) imam. …

In the turbulent decade after the Iranian revolution, the U.S. government welcomed this new Saudi religious activism, viewing it as a badly needed counterweight to help contain Iran’s drive to expand its religious and political influence. The Saudi export of Wahhabi Islam would eventually develop into an impressive soft power that the House of Saud could extend across the Muslim world. … Before long, this international activism took concrete form in a jihad aimed at the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which had begun [invading on 24 December 1979] [months after having provided only advisors to an independent leftist-revolutionary government that turned out to be ignoring much of Moscow’s advice] the same year as Iran’s revolution. … Starting in the early 1980s, the Saudi government provided several billions of dollars in arms and other assistance to the cause of freeing Afghanistan from godless communists. Reagan, of course, was careful to call them ‘freedom fighters’ rather than ‘holy warriors.’

——

VIDEO: 1979 Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Mujahideen: “Your cause is right and God is on your side!”

——

The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998)

Translated from the French by William Blum and David N. Gibbs. This translation was published in Gibbs, “Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Retrospect,” International Politics 37, no. 2, 2000, pp. 241-242/

Original French version appeared in “Les Révélations d’un Ancien Conseilleur de Carter: ‘Oui, la CIA est Entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes…’” Le Nouvel Observateur [Paris], January 15-21, 1998, p. 76. Click here for original French text.

Note that all ellipses appeared in the original transcript, as published in Le Nouvel Observateur.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them. However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: «We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: «Some agitated Moslems»? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today…

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is t here in com m on among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries…

Additional Sources: …

——

Anatomy of a Victory: CIA’s Covert Afghan War

By: Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992

… In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan [on 24 December 1979] to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy Carter signed the first – and for many years the only -presidential “finding” on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with the Carter document.

The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in “harassment” of Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at the time, these sources said.

The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA, would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in Nicaragua and Angola.

Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China’s role has been one of the secret war’s most closely guarded secrets.

In all, the United States funneled more than $2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II.

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war “tended to be handled out of Casey’s back pocket,” recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China’s government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan. Most of the weapons dated to the Korean War or earlier. The amounts were significant — 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to Yousaf — but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

Beginning in 1984, Soviet forces in Afghanistan began to experiment with new and more aggressive tactics against the mujaheddin, based on the use of Soviet special forces, called the Spetsnaz, in helicopter-borne assaults on Afghan rebel supply lines. As these tactics succeeded, Soviet commanders pursued them increasingly. …

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, and national security adviser Robert D. McFarlane signed an extensive annex, augmenting the original Carter intelligence finding that focused on “harassment” of Soviet occupying forces, according to several sources. Although it covered diplomatic and humanitarian objectives as well, the new, detailed Reagan directive used bold language to authorize stepped-up covert military aid to the mujaheddin, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal.

New Covert U.S. Aid

The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, according to Yousaf — as well as what he called a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels. …

——

Richard Labévière, 2000, «Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam»

p.6:

…Between 1994 and 1997, Bill Clinton was happy to allow Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to support the Taleban, seeing them as a useful counterbalance to Iran’s influence. …

‘The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army’ explains a former CIA analyst. ‘The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power. …’ In a certain sense, the Cold War is still going on. For years Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of the National Council on Intelligence at the CIA, has been talking up the ‘modernizing virtues’ of the Islamists, insisting on their anti-Statist concepts of the economy. Listening to him, you would almost take the Taleban and their Wahhabi allies for liberals. ‘Islam, in theory at least, is firmly anchored in the traditions of free trade and private enterprise,’ wrote Fuller.2 … ‘Islam does not glorify the State’s role in the economy.’ …

——

U. S. – Jihadists Relation, Part II: Waging Jihad to Defeat the Soviet Union

Akbar Ganji [7 July 2014. The links have been updated here.]

…Bin Laden was a civil engineer and a member of a wealthy Saudi family, which was not, however, a part of the Saudi royal family. He recruited 4000 Saudi citizens and took them to Afghanistan. Altogether, 100,000 fighters were recruited and taken to Afghanistan, who were funded, armed and trained by CIA and Saudi Arabia. The high level of civilian casualties that the war would certainly entail was considered by the Carter administration, but was set aside. One senior official of the Carter administration said, «The question here was whether it was morally acceptable that, in order to keep the Soviets off balance, which was the reason for the operation, it was permissible to use other lives for our geopolitical interests». Representative Charles Wilson, a Texas Democrat, said that Carter’s CIA director Stansfield Turner said, «I decided I could live with that [high civilian casualties]».

But, the United States did not stop there. Meeting in 1985 with the Mujahideen leaders at the White House, Ronald Reagan referred to them as the «moral equivalent of America’s Founding Fathers». Think about it for a moment: Bin Laden and other hardline Muslim fundamentalists and leaders of the Mujahideen, such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, were moral equivalent of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers. In the same meeting with the Jihadists, Reagan said, «We have here six Afghanistan freedom fighters. There is a man here whose wife was killed in front of his two children. Another one [is here] who lost his brother in a town, village, in which 105 people were massacred. One lost a brother who was the mayor of that village. They are here to tell the outside world, the free world, what is really going on in Afghanistan». Earlier in 1982, Reagan had dedicated the space shuttle Colombia to what he called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. «This is Colombia lifting, representing man’s finest aspirations in the field of science and technology, so too the struggle of the Afghan people represents man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating on behalf of the American people the March 22 of Colombia to the people of Afghanistan,» he said. …

——

Panama Papers reveal George Soros’ deep money ties to secretive weapons, intel investment firm

By Peter Byrne · Published May 16, 2016

… Soros Capital [on 24 January 1995] set up an offshore company in the Cayman Islands for the purpose of investing private equity with the Carlyle Group, alongside members of Saudi Arabia’s Bin Laden family. Carlyle’s partners include ex-heads of state and former CIA officials. The private equity partnership specializes in buying and selling weapons manufacturing and intelligence gathering companies with government and military contracts and it also uses secret offshore companies to conduct business. …

Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group

By Kurt Eichenwald, New York Times, October 26, 2001

…In recent years, Frank C. Carlucci, the chairman of Carlyle and a former secretary of defense, has visited the [bin Laden] family’s headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, as have former President George Bush and James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state. Mr. Bush works as an adviser to Carlyle, and Mr. Baker is a partner in the firm.

The family’s financial relationship with Carlyle began in 1994. At that time, they committed $2 million to a buyout fund, Carlyle Partners II, a tiny fraction of the $1.3 billion raised for the fund. …

——

‘Sensitive’ UK terror funding inquiry may never be published

Investigation into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups operating in UK understood to focus on Saudi Arabia

Shares 27,931, Jessica Elgot, Wednesday 31 May 2017 10.20 EDT

An investigation into the foreign funding and support of jihadi groups that was authorised by David Cameron may never be published, the Home Office has admitted. …

——

SAUDI ARABIA LAVISHES CONSERVATIVE U.K. OFFICIALS WITH GIFTS, TRAVEL, AND PLUM CONSULTANCIES

Lee Fang, June 4 2017, 7:00 a.m.

NEW FIGURES RELEASED by British Parliament show that, at a time when U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s ties to Saudi Arabia have become an election issue, conservative government officials and members of Parliament were lavished with money by the oil-rich Saudi government with gifts, travel expenses, and consulting fees.

Tory lawmakers received the cash as the U.K. backs Saudi Arabia’s brutal war against Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East. …

The U.S., Not Russia, Arms Al Qaeda Worldwide, Washington is the Jihadists’ Sugar Daddy

The U.S., Not Russia, Arms Al Qaeda Worldwide

By Glen Ford,

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford. “For Russia, the war in Afghanistan is a domestic issue, with a direct impact on the drug trade and terrorist attacks on Russian cities.”

The U.S. Secretary of Defense claims Russia is giving weapons to the Taliban, in Afghanistan. “Mad Dog” Mattis must also have mad cow disease of the brain. “If there is one major power in the world that has consistently fought against Islamic jihadists, in Afghanistan and everywhere else, it is Russia.”

If the United States were not a superpower, it would be the joke of the planet, a nation whose government tells the most outrageous and ridiculous lies — and may actually believe them — and whose corporate media report those lies as gospel truth.

The latest whopper comes from the mouth of James “Mad Dog” Mattis, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, who claims the Russians are providing weapons to the Taliban, in Afghanistan. The charge is insane. If there is one major power in the world that has consistently fought against Islamic jihadists, in Afghanistan and everywhere else, it is Russia. And, the major power most responsible for the rise of the Taliban and other jihadist outfits, is the United States, which teamed with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to create the international jihadist network in order to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan, almost 40 years ago. Despite that history, beginning in 2009, the Russians allowed the U.S. to use Russian airspace to supply American troops in Afghanistan. It was a vital lifeline for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, which could not be adequately supplied through Pakistan.

The Russians were hoping that the new American president, Barack Obama, would make an honest effort to improve relations with Moscow – which, of course, never happened. But mainly, Russia was acting in its own interest. Afghan heroin devastated Russian society, and Islamic jihadists have killed thousands of people on Russian soil. Jihadists from Chechnya have done the most damage, but Russia has a vital interest in combating Islamist terror in the Muslim former Soviet Republics, especially Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan, which all border on Afghanistan. For Russia, the war in Afghanistan is a domestic issue, with a direct impact on the drug trade and terrorist attacks on Russian cities. The suicide bomber that blew up a subway train in St. Petersburg, Russia, killing 14 people earlier this month, was from Kyrgyzstan.

Nobody has to tell the Russians about the threat of jihadist terror.

Washington is Jihadists’ Sugar Daddy

The Russians finally shut off U.S. military access to their airspace near Afghanistan, in 2015, after the Obama administration fomented the coup in Ukraine and decided to make Russia its main adversary in the world. But, it is the Russians, along with the Syrians and the Iranians, that continue to be the main obstacle to the spread of jihadist terror in the world, today – while the Americans, the Saudis and Pakistan remain the bulwarks of Islamic terror, providing billions in arms and training for Islamic fighters all around the region. The United States and its NATO allies provided the air force for jihadists in Libya, and then did the same thing in Syria for al Qaida, which became so powerful that it split, with one branch becoming ISIS. ISIS now vies for influence and territory in Afghanistan. The ISIS fighters that the U.S. targeted with the biggest conventional bomb in its inventory, a MOAB, in Afghanistan, this month, came from Pakistan, Washington’s longtime ally, which is also continues to be the home base for the Afghan Taliban. So, when the United States makes the outrageous charge that Russia is aiding the Taliban, it’s like the Mafia complaining about organized crime.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to Black Agenda Report.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

The Rise of the Generals

By Patrick Buchanan

April 28, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Has President Donald Trump outsourced foreign policy to the generals?

So it would seem. Candidate Trump held out his hand to Vladimir Putin. He rejected further U.S. intervention in Syria other than to smash ISIS.

He spoke of getting out and staying out of the misbegotten Middle East wars into which Presidents Bush II and Obama had plunged the country.

President Trump’s seeming renunciation of an anti-interventionist foreign policy is the great surprise of the first 100 days, and the most ominous. For any new war could vitiate the Trump mandate and consume his presidency.

Trump no longer calls NATO “obsolete,” but moves U.S. troops toward Russia in the Baltic and eastern Balkans. Rex Tillerson, holder of Russia’s Order of Friendship, now warns that the U.S. will not lift sanctions on Russia until she gets out of Ukraine.

If Tillerson is not bluffing, that would rule out any rapprochement in the Trump presidency. For neither Putin, nor any successor, could surrender Crimea and survive.

What happened to the Trump of 2016?

When did Kiev’s claim to Crimea become more crucial to us than a cooperative relationship with a nuclear-armed Russia? In 1991, Bush I and Secretary of State James Baker thought the very idea of Ukraine’s independence was the product of a “suicidal nationalism.”

Where do we think this demonization of Putin and ostracism of Russia is going to lead?

To get Xi Jinping to help with our Pyongyang problem, Trump has dropped all talk of befriending Taiwan, backed off Tillerson’s warning to Beijing to vacate its fortified reefs in the South China Sea, and held out promises of major concessions to Beijing in future trade deals.

“I like (Xi Jinping) and I believe he likes me a lot,” Trump said this week. One recalls FDR admonishing Churchill, “I think I can personally handle Stalin better than … your Foreign Office … Stalin hates the guts of all your people. He thinks he likes me better.”

FDR did not live to see what a fool Stalin had made of him.

Among the achievements celebrated in Trump’s first 100 days are the 59 cruise missiles launched at the Syrian airfield from which the gas attack on civilians allegedly came, and the dropping of the 22,000-pound MOAB bomb in Afghanistan.

But what did these bombings accomplish?

The War Party seems again ascendant. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are happy campers. In Afghanistan, the U.S. commander is calling for thousands more U.S. troops to assist the 8,500 still there, to stabilize an Afghan regime and army that is steadily losing ground to the Taliban.

Iran is back on the front burner. While Tillerson concedes that Tehran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, Trump says it is violating “the spirit of the agreement.”

How so? Says Tillerson, Iran is “destabilizing” the region, and threatening U.S. interests in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon.

But Iran is an ally of Syria and was invited in to help the U.N.-recognized government put down an insurrection that contains elements of al-Qaida and ISIS. It is we, the Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs who have been backing the rebels seeking to overthrow the regime.

In Yemen, Houthi rebels overthrew and expelled a Saudi satrap. The bombing, blockading and intervention with troops is being done by Saudi and Sunni Arabs, assisted by the U.S. Navy and Air Force.

It is we and the Saudis who are talking of closing the Yemeni port of Hodeida, which could bring on widespread starvation.

It was not Iran, but the U.S. that invaded Iraq, overthrew the Baghdad regime and occupied the country. It was not Iran that overthrew Col. Gadhafi and created the current disaster in Libya.

Monday, the USS Mahan fired a flare to warn off an Iranian patrol boat, 1,000 meters away. Supposedly, this was a provocation. But Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif had a point when he tweeted:

“Breaking: Our Navy operates in – yes, correct – the Persian Gulf, not the Gulf of Mexico. Question is what US Navy doing 7,500 miles from home.”

Who is behind the seeming conversion of Trump to hawk?

The generals, Bibi Netanyahu and the neocons, Congressional hawks with Cold War mindsets, the Saudi royal family and the Gulf Arabs – they are winning the battle for the president’s mind.

And their agenda for America?

We are to recognize that our true enemy in the Mideast is not al-Qaida or ISIS, but Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and his patron, Putin. And until Hezbollah is eviscerated, Assad is gone, and Iran is smashed the way we did Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, the flowering of Middle East democracy that we all seek cannot truly begin.

But before President Trump proceeds along the path laid out for him by his generals, brave and patriotic men that they are, he should discover if any of them opposed any of the idiotic wars of the last 15 years, beginning with that greatest of strategic blunders – George Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out in May, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com .

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

 

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What’s your response? –  Scroll down to add / read comments 

Lobby: US can’t afford to lose Afghanistan to Taliban

On Friday, Taliban fighters attacked an Afghan military base in Mazar-e-Sharif, killing 140 US-trained Afghan soldiers and wounding many others. It’s Taliban’s response to America’s testing its MOAB weapon to scare those Israel-hating Taliban after they recaptured a major part of Baghlan province from Afghan soldiers on April 7.

On April 11, 2017, Israel propaganda news website The National Interest, founded in 1985 by Jew neocon Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol), cried America Can’t Afford Keep Losing the War in Afghanistan.

As the Taliban launch their spring offensive, the Trump administration has yet to announce its strategy for the war in Afghanistan,” said Sabera Azizi.

Gen. John Nicholson, the top US-NATO commander in Afghanistan, told the AIPAC controlled Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2017 that the security situation in Afghanistan was at a stalemate. He estimated that an additional several thousand troops would be needed to reverse that stalemate. Gen. Jospeh Votel, commander of the US Central Command, made a similar assertion to the committee in March 2017.

Dubya Bush administration planned an invasion of Afghanistan in December 2000 to exploit Caspian Sea oil reserves and increase supply of poppy for the Jew Mafia.

Taliban now control nearly 75% of Afghanistan territory by night.

Since 2002, Taliban have been putting armed resistance against both the US occupation and the US-backed regime and the military forces propped up to protect it both in Kabul and across the country. That the base targeted by the recent attack also reportedly garrisoned German troops is also significant. The prospect of ending such attacks or securing any sort of “victory” over the Taliban and the local tribes allied to it is as unlikely now as a US victory was in Vietnam during the 1970’s,” says Ulson Gunnar on April 25, 2017 (here).

Professor Rajan Menon (University of New York) wrote in September 2016: “Few will say it, but the facts are indisputable: America’s war in Afghanistan has failed. There comes a time when persisting in a lost cause amounts to foolishness, indeed irresponsibility. That time has arrived.”

Pakistan’s top spy, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul had predicted in 2010 that America’s war in Afghanistan was a lost cause.

American Jewish writer, political commentator, author of seven books, anti-war activist and ex-Zionist Phyllis Bennis claims the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were to serve Israeli interests. She also claims that the same Zionists are now pushing America into new war with Iran.

The US is 11 years into its current war in Afghanistan and still losing. We never had a chance to WIN this war of vengeance – and while few in Washington are ready to admit that, they have continued to revise and redefine what WINNING might look like,” Ms Bennis wrote on April 19, 2012.

American invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 has become country’s longest war. It has cost over US$1 trillion so far. More than 3,000 US soldiers and civilian contractors have been killed and over 21,000 wounded. Over 20% of these casualties are inflicted by Afghan soldiers trained by US-NATO forces.

Dumb US General, John Nicholson, Thinks Russia Must Be Arming the Taliban. Like the USA is arming Al-Qaeda?

US General Thinks Russia Must Be Arming the Taliban

Provides No Evidence for Allegations of ‘Malign Influence’

The Afghan War is going extremely poorly, 16 years in, and the US military needs someone to blame for its failures. The first choice among a lot of top military figures seems to be Russia, and while they offer no evidence to back up their claims, several have alleged that Russia might conceivably be arming the Taliban.

US commandeer Gen. John Nicholson appeared to be joining that camp today during comments in Kabul, complaining about the “malign influence” of Russia in the country, and insisting that he was “not refuting” allegations of Russia shipping weapons to the Taliban.

“Not refuting” is a very weak version of alleging, in this case, as US officials have offered no evidence that this is the case, nor any plausible reason why Russia would conceivably do this, as Russia fought materially the same insurgency during the 1970s and 1980s.

The only rationale for Russia backing the Taliban against the US seems to be that the US cheerfully backed the insurgency during the Russian occupation. Russia, however,, has long supported the US-led war in Afghanistan, hoping it would prevent the spread of Islamist forces into former Soviet republics in Central Asia, nations which Russia has defensive treaties with, and which could quickly suck Russia into a very unpopular regional war.

Given this, and the absolute lack of evidence, the allegations that Russia might be arming the Taliban, or at least that it can’t be ruled out, appears to be a very desperate attempt by the military brass to shift the blame for a failing war to an external party.

%d bloggers like this: