Stewart has a must-read op-ed in Time. It raises again the specter of Afghanistan becoming Obama's Iraq (or Vietnam). Here's hoping someone in their camp reads this.

Stewart (speaking from on the ground experience/knowledge) states that NATO/US should not send more troops to Afghanistan. The Soviet experience, the British experience (19th-20th c.) even all the way back to Alexander the Great. Afghans are fiercely anti-occupation and the NATO force sadly in the last years has gone (like in Iraq) from being seen as a liberator to an occupier.

The country in other words has to come to its own political future and choices. Stewart points towards what can be done by the West.

RS:

A smarter strategy would focus on two elements: more effective aid and a more limited military objective.

On the former:

We should focus on meeting the Afghan government's request for more investment in agricultural irrigation, energy and roads. And we should increase our support to the most effective departments, such as education, health and rural development; they are good for the reputation of the Afghan state and the West. Creating more educated, healthier women and men and better transport, communications and electrical infrastructure may be only part of the story, but they are essential for Afghanistan's economic future.

On the latter:

Our military strategy, meanwhile, should focus on counterterrorism — not counterinsurgency. Our presence has so far prevented al-Qaeda from establishing training camps in Afghanistan. We must continue to prevent it from doing so. But our troops should not try to hold territory or chase the Taliban around rural areas. We should also use our presence to steer Afghanistan away from civil war and provide some opportunity for the Afghans themselves to create a more humane, well-governed and prosperous country. This policy would require far fewer troops over the next 20 years, and they would probably be predominantly special forces and intelligence operatives.

This would fit with Obama's overall focus on destroying al-Qaeda and his publicly expressed realism and understanding of having to work with bad/less than ideal actors in less than ideal circumstances. He has also talked (following his mentor on these issues Joe Biden) about increasing aid to Pakistan for civil society predicated on certain other political measures. A similar move could be done in Afghanistan rather than Obama's (to date) seemingly more open-ended blank check promises to the Afghan government. Though it should be noted that Obmaa criticized President Karzai in his latest speech.

This Stewartian vision pushes directly against Petraeus--assuming Petraeus as Cent Com Commander will push for some modified version of his COIN doctrine in Afghanistan. [That assumption may be prove to be false. Either A)Petraeus only continues to focus on Iraq as his baby or B)He realizes somehow that what worked in Iraq won't work in Afghanistan].

Update I:  Per this story of Obama's trip to Kabul and the security deterioration there, there may be a way to split the difference if (and this is undoubtedly a Big If) the increase in troops to Afghanistan is based on a very short term horizon then transiting to the kind of vision Stewart lays out.  Alternatively of course it could just entangle them in further and lead to a longer, bloodier stalemate.

]]> http://pentagonbrief.wordpress.com/?p=170 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:19:36 +0000 worldmilitaryhistory http://pentagonbrief.wordpress.com/?p=170 Military-themed posters and prints are available through the PatriArt Gallery.

War fighters from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom are testing new battlefield systems that can discern friend from foe during the "Bold Quest Plus" joint military demonstration being conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
 
The demonstration's purpose is to provide warfighters with combat-identification technologies that maximize mission effectiveness while minimizing the chances of fratricide, said John Miller, operations manager for coalition combat identification at U.S. Joint Forces Command, based at Norfolk, Va.

The command is sponsoring the demonstration at Eglin, which began July 11. Mr. Miller said the two-week-long event is the latest in a series conducted stateside and overseas over the past several years.

One of the desired outcomes of Bold Quest Plus is to provide warfighters with improved means to rapidly identify and engage enemy forces during the smoke and confusion of battle, Mr. Miller said.

"We're trying to give them tools that help them be faster in sorting all that out, and quicker to pull the trigger on the right target, and thereby survive every engagement," he explained.

Fratricide, when "friendly" military forces accidently fire on and kill other friendly forces, can devastate unit morale, Mr. Miller said.

"We're all about minimizing fratricide, but we're also trying to make our shooters better in a gunfight than the other guy," he said. "Put those two things together, and that's why this is important."

More than 400 warfighters from the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom are at Eglin testing combat-identification technologies and procedures during air- and ground-based demonstrations, Mr. Miller said. He noted that representatives from Germany, Denmark, France and Australia also are on hand to observe the demonstration.

Improved combat-identification capability is now being incorporated into future radio systems to be used by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, Mr. Miller said.

"Radio-based combat ID for ground forces is out there," he said.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps also are developing identification technologies for air platforms, Mr. Miller said.

One of the systems being demonstrated at Eglin incorporates forward air controllers who quickly radio the locations of friendly forces and enemy-targeting information to coalition pilots overhead, Canadian Forces Capt. Erik Esselaar said.

The system enables this key data to be rapidly transmitted "back in the cockpit for the pilot," he said.

"The battlefield that confronts Canadian Forces members deployed on operations today is extremely complex and is expected to remain so into the future," said Lt. Cmdr. Randy Mifflin, representing the chief of force development for Canadian Forces during Bold Quest Plus.

Such complexity, Commander Mifflin said, is especially true in Afghanistan, where "coalition forces of different capabilities and methods of operation are coming face to face with high-speed, high-tech warfare in a continuously changing and uncertain environment."

Conducting military operations in Afghanistan "demands fast and accurate means to discriminate between enemies, friends and neutrals to enable the timely, effective and safe employment of our weapons systems," Commander Mifflin said. The Canadian military, he said, is working to enhance its capabilities in this area.

Working with the United States and other allies, the Canadian Forces' goal "is to improve combat effectiveness and reduce the risk of fratricide and collateral damage, through better training of personnel; development of better doctrine, including tactics, techniques and procedures; and improvements to the technology assisting combat identification," Commander Mifflin said.

Bold Quest Plus is scheduled to conclude July 25.

"I think you will see these 'Quest-type' of events on a reoccurring basis" every 18 months or so, Mr. Miller said. A new exercise is planned for sometime next year.

Sonia Mancini, quarant'anni, livornese.
Tenente della Riserva selezionata dell'Esericito Italiano, da oltre cinque mesi a Baghdad è il capo dell'ufficio Affari Pubblici nella missione NATO di addestramento delle forze di sicurezza irakene. In tale veste, è la portavoce del generale di divisione Paolo Bosotti, vice comandante della missione.
Dopo un corso di addestramente della durata di due mesi, svolto presso la Scuola di Applicazione ed Istituti di Studi Militari a Torino, ora fa parte del gruppo degli "esperti della Comunicazione". L'Esercito può inviarla in un teatro operativo per un periodo complesivo di ventiquattro mesi.
Oggi lavora per lo più nella blindatissima Zona Verde di Baghdad, incontrando giornalisti iracheni e stranieri, accompagnando il generale Bosotti nelle riunioni con politici e militari, impartendo lezioni di comunicazione ad ufficiali, funzionari e dirigenti locali. Di notte, dorme in un container mimetizzato, coperto di sacchi di sabbia. Compagna di stanza un'ufficiale danese. I momenti di relax - con altri militari di vari Paesi, diplomatici, funzionari internazionali e contractors - li trascorre vicino alla piscina della vecchia ambasciata statunitense.
Quando va male, ci sono i bunker, dipinti di giallo fluorescente, che dice di non perdere mai di vista. A chi le chiede se tale situazione non sia un po' claustrofobica, risponde: "Claustrofobico stare a Baghdad e volare su un elicottero Black Hawk ogni settimana? No, lo assicuro... E' bellissimo!".
Difatti, ora che sta scadendo il suo primo mandato, spera che le rinnovino l'incarico.

Ah, dimenticavamo. Nella vita fa la giornalista, a La7. Assunta a tempo parziale.

I'd like to briefly interrupt the SWF blogging to discuss another project OIR is launching: a commemorative edition for NATO's 60th anniversary. I come to the NATO team with a keen interest in regional organizations and curiosity about the ways in which they constrain and enhance the economic, political, and military policy scope available to member states.

In our examination of NATO, we want to move beyond the Cold War dynamics that shaped its development but ask why NATO membership has continued and increased in an era where Germany is a flourishing pillar of the European economy, Russia is not the foremost global threat, and American global action has been a source of tension between American leaders and their European counterparts. It is clear that NATO has moved a long way from the simplistic IR student's mnemonic of "to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in." To paraphrase OIR Scholar-Editor Andrew Hammond, "NATO did almost nothing for fifty years while the threat it was created to combat existed, then when that threat was no longer present, NATO suddenly became active.

The first time I traveled abroad was to Paris in March of 1999. Streets and alleyways were covered in slightly faded graffiti urging NATO to get out of the Balkans. Given that this tension existed even when NATO executed military actions in Europe, how have leaders been able to justify the expanding scope of NATO activity to their constituents? We hope to examine the tensions that exist within the alliance, inside member states, and between member and non-member states as NATO engages with its periphery. This will include examination of geographic peripheries (the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, Russia) as well as capacity peripheries (environmental cooperation, reconstruction in Afghanistan) and political peripheries (France, Turkey, the transatlantic alliance). We hope that by examining the successes and failures on the periphery, we can better understand the variables that have allowed NATO to continue to exist-- and project the fate of the organization over another sixty years.

July 13, 2008

Russia is considering aiming nuclear weapons at Western Europe for the first time since the end of the cold war.

Defense sources in Moscow say among the schemes being discussed to counter US plans to station a missile defense shield in Europe is the possible deployment of ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between the EU countries of Lithuania and Poland, The Times Online reported.

A Russian parliamentary committee visited the enclave 10 days ago to look into how a new generation of nuclear missiles could be based there, the report added.

If a deployment does take place, then it would greatly increase tensions in Europe between Moscow and Washington.

Only last week, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement in Prague to build a radar station in the Czech Republic.

A deal with Poland is in the works to host a base for 10 interceptor rockets on its border with Russia. The agreement is expected to be signed later this year.

Moscow is strongly opposed to the shield, saying that it is part of an aggressive US military expansion into its own backyard.

A source with close connections to the Russian defense ministry said, "One of the main steps under consideration is a redeployment of nuclear missiles to Kaliningrad and Belarus. These missiles would be pointed at Europe. It would be a perfectly legitimate step. If America wants to expand its military capabilities in Europe, then we have the right to act accordingly".

The source also went on to question the US claim that the shield was intended to intercept missiles only from the so-called rogue states. He said, "How would Washington feel if we placed interceptor missiles on Cuba or Venezuela?"

Experts said the threat of deploying missiles in Kaliningrad was largely aimed at strengthening the opposition to the shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. Experts went on to add that Russia would have to build new long-range ground-based ballistic missiles since it has destroyed most of its Soviet-era arsenal.

U.S. troops to hold exercises in Georgia, Ukraine

AFP
July 14, 2008


Georgian soldiers take part in war games with their US, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Ukrainean counterparts at the Vaziani training area on the outskirts of Tbilisi.

US troops on Monday began military exercises near the Russian border in ex-Soviet Ukraine and were poised to launch them in Georgia, amid tense relations between Moscow and Washington, officials said.

A ceremony inaugurating the Sea Breeze-2008 NATO exercise was held off Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, a Ukrainian defence ministry spokeswoman said, against anti-NATO protests and a hostile reaction from officials in Russia.

The NATO exercises "will increase political and military tensions in Europe as a whole," Sergei Mironov, speaker of the upper house of the Russian parliament, was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency in Moscow.

Sea Breeze-2008, which lasts until July 26, will also include forces from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Macedonia and Turkey, officials said.

Separate military exercises dubbed Immediate Response-2008 are due to start in Georgia on Tuesday with Armenian, Azerbaijani, Ukrainian and US troops taking part, a Georgian defence ministry spokeswoman said.

"The US-Georgia joint exercises will be held at the Vaziani military base" less than 100 kilometres (60 miles) from the Russian border with a total of 1,650 servicemen taking part, said the spokeswoman, Nana Intskirveli.

Russia to ‘neutralise’ US missile defence threat: report

AFP
July 14, 2008

Russia’s military is ready to “neutralise” any threat to its nuclear deterrent from US missile defence sites in Europe, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said Monday, according to Interfax news agency.

Read Full Article Here

“Lasciatemi proseguire con qualcosa che potete trovare completamente sorprendente, soprattutto provenendo da me: voi che siete diplomatici, giornalisti, parlamentari, giuristi internazionali e uomini d'affari di domani, spero che riterrete che la vostra prima responsabilità, oltre a costruire una Gran Bretagna e una NATO le più solide possibili, consista nel rafforzare e costruire le capacità dell'Unione Europea. Troverete strano ed anche un po' strabico che sia l'ambasciatore americano alla NATO a tenere questo discorso davanti voi e a preconizzare, per i dirigenti britannici ed internazionali di domani, la costruzione di un'UE più forte. Perché dunque faccio un tale discorso?
Se noi abbiamo appreso una cosa dall'11 settembre 2001, o anche, in questo caso, da sessanta o cento anni a questa parte, è che gli Stati Uniti ed il Regno Unito non hanno soltanto bisogno uno dell'altro, ma hanno bisogno di un'Europa forte. Negli Stati Uniti, abbiamo bisogno di un'Europa che sia il più possibile unita, pronta a fare tutta la sua parte per difendere la nostra sicurezza comune e promuovere i nostri valori condivisi. Ed i britannici, come tutti gli europei, hanno bisogno di un'America che sia impegnata, che consulti l'Europa e che cooperi con essa allo scopo di trovare soluzioni comuni a sfide comuni (...).
Oggi, le sfide che dobbiamo superare insieme vanno dal terrorismo, dall'estremismo violento e dalle armi di distruzione di massa fino alla necessità di ridurre la nostra dipendenza verso l'energia fossile, reagire alla povertà, alle malattie ed alla fame che toccano ancora troppa gente nel mondo. Insieme, dobbiamo ricomporre i rapporti con il Cremlino che ha fermamente rafforzato il suo potere statale, che si è ritirato dal Trattato sulle armi convenzionali in Europa e che minaccia di puntare i suoi missili contro i suoi vicini, anche se lavoriamo insieme alla Russia sull'Iran, la Corea del Nord e su altri interessi comuni di primaria importanza. Dobbiamo mantenere verso l'Iran la giusta proporzione di diplomazia, di aperture politiche ed economiche, e di pressione perché ricominci a cooperare con il Consiglio di Sicurezza, affinché abbandoni ogni idea terroristica e dia al suo popolo il futuro che esso merita. E dobbiamo incoraggiare la Cina ad utilizzare la sua crescente potenza in direzione della stabilità e della pace, presso i suoi vicini o negli affari del mondo. In breve, viviamo in un mondo complicato e pericoloso che richiede da parte di quelli che hanno la possibilità di vivere in società libere di riunire le loro forze per proteggere ciò che abbiamo e per consolidare ed allargare la Comunità democratica.
(…)
Quando noi, gli Stati Uniti, cerchiamo nel mondo i partner che possono rispondere a queste sfide, guardiamo certamente ai nostri alleati dell'Asia e alle altre potenti democrazie a sud ed a est; ma spesso, ci arrestiamo alla sola UE. Noi consulteremo sempre Londra per prima, come le altre capitali, ma sempre più spesso ci volteremo anche verso le istituzioni europee. Con quindici missioni su tre continenti, l'UE ha provato la sua capacità di costituire un insieme più grande della somma delle sue parti. Oggi, l'UE fornisce aiuti allo sviluppo, ai diritti umani, ai programmi anticorruzione, agli istruttori di polizia, alle facoltà d'inquadramento e, più importante, alla capacità di riunire tutte queste cose nella proporzione giusta per far fronte al problema della fase.
La Gran Bretagna è stata nazione pilota per la costruzione di queste capacità nell'UE ed esse sono proficue: a prova di ciò, la missione civile-militare dell'UE in Bosnia, le missioni di polizia a Timor Est ed a Rafah, e gli sforzi di mantenimento della pace in Ciad. Sosteniamo la direzione europea in ciascuno di questi casi. Ma mentre la capacità europea di condurre azioni comuni in materia di potenza "morbida" (soft power) è aumentata, il nostro impegno transatlantico in materia di potenza “forte” (hard power) è diminuito. (...) già, in Ciad, le nazioni europee che partecipano alla missione scoprono che anche per organizzare un'operazione modesta di sostegno della pace, occorrono elicotteri di manovra, aerei da trasporto a lungo raggio d'azione; mezzi sofisticati di informazioni, di sorveglianza e di riconoscimento; mezzi di comunicazione moderni ed interoperabili. Tutto l'aiuto allo sviluppo del mondo, tutto il sostegno alla buona gestione e tutti gli addestramenti di polizia del mondo non servono a nulla se inizialmente non potete fornire la sicurezza alle persone che cercate di aiutare.
(…)
L'organizzazione che servo, la NATO, trae gli stessi insegnamenti in Afghanistan. È per questo che sono a Londra oggi per dire che gli Stati Uniti, che il Regno Unito, che la NATO ed il mondo democratico hanno bisogno di una capacità di difesa europea più forte e più potente. Una Politica Europea di Sicurezza e di Difesa (PESD) che usa soltanto il soft power non basta. Ciò impone che la Gran Bretagna utilizzi con determinazione la sua direzione in Europa perché le spese europee di difesa aumentino nuovamente: occorre migliorare i mezzi militari europei collocati in settori trascurati come quelli degli elicotteri, i droni, le forze speciali; disporre di comunicazioni interoperabili e di soldati addestrati alla lotta antiribellione. È nostro interesse comune perché gli americani ed i britannici non possono continuare a portare tale parte della responsabilità globale senza ulteriore aiuto dei nostri alleati ed amici. (...) questo ci riporta alla mia idea prima: abbiamo bisogno di un'UE più forte, abbiamo bisogno di una NATO più forte, e se l'Afghanistan ci ha fatto apprendere una cosa, è che abbiamo bisogno di relazioni più prossime e affidabili tra loro. Andrò più lontano: se da ambo le parti dell'Atlantico crediamo realmente ad un approccio globale sulla sicurezza, che riunisca il meglio della nostra potenza, soft e hard allo stesso tempo, abbiamo bisogno di uno spazio dove possiamo pianificare ed addestrarci a tali missioni, come un'unica famiglia UE-NATO. Non abbiate timore, non sto parlando del ravvicinamento di istituzioni o anche della fusione dei loro mandati. Quello non avrebbe senso né per l'Europa né per l'America. L'Europa ha bisogno di uno spazio dove possa agire indipendentemente, ed abbiamo bisogno di un'Europa capace e determinata a farlo, nella difesa dei nostri interessi e valori comuni. Tuttavia, non possiamo continuare ad andare ciascuno per proprio conto in regioni lontane del mondo, e scegliere ogni volta i nostri partner. Le coalizioni di volonterosi hanno il loro limite. Dobbiamo apprendere a pensare, prepararci ed agire insieme, pur preservando l'autonomia di ogni istituzione. Non soltanto in Afghanistan ed in Kosovo, dove la NATO e l'UE sono impegnate; ma ogni volta che saremo chiamati a sostenere la sicurezza e lo sviluppo, che sia nei territori palestinesi, in Africa o per le prossime sfide appena concepibili oggi. Se possiamo realizzarlo come Comunità transatlantica, potremo anche, come membri nel cuore della famiglia delle Nazioni Unite, rafforzare gli sforzi dell'organizzazione.
(…)
Le buone notizie, sono che gli astri sembrano allinearsi per favorire tale coerenza. A Parigi, abbiamo il Presidente che vuole utilizzare la sua presidenza dell'UE per rafforzare l'Europa della difesa, ed in seguito riportare la Francia in una NATO rinnovata. A Washington, i dirigenti di qualsiasi parte chiamano ad un'Europa unita. Ed a Londra, David Miliband ci chiede di sostenere l'onda civile del mondo a favore della democrazia, tanto con il soft power che con l'hard power. Così, i vecchi contenziosi ed altre discussioni si alleviano sulle due rive dell'Atlantico. Dobbiamo ora mostrare una saggezza uguale per ridurre le barriere tra le organizzazioni. (...) I vecchi membri dell'UE e della NATO come il Regno Unito, la Francia e la Germania detengono le chiavi di questo grande accordo. Gli Stati Uniti restano pronti ad aiutarli, ma gli europei devono prendere l'iniziativa di far sciogliere i ghiacciai dell'assurdo "conflitto freddo" tra le due organizzazioni (...). (...) la mia generazione è pronta ad iniziare il lavoro ad elaborare uno dei più grandi partenariati della storia, l'Unione transatlantica, per rispondere alle sfide più recenti che influiscono sulla nostra sicurezza e la nostra libertà.”

Estratti del discorso di Victoria Nuland, ambasciatore statunitense presso la NATO, pronunciato il 25 febbraio 2008 alla London School of Economics.
(Grassetti nostri).

La signora ha poi rincarato la dose, lo scorso 9 giugno, in un'intervista concessa a RIA Novosti: "I would love to live in a world where Russia wanted to be a NATO member...".
Ma che tenerezza!

Obama’s Two-Faced Foreign Policy

Independent
July 16, 2008

Obama lays out his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan in an op-ed for The New York Times. It reveals on full display a proposed foreign policy of confusion and contradiction.

With the notable exception of calling for a “residual force” to fight Al Qaeda and train troops, Obama sensibly argues that the best policy is to wean the Iraqis from dependence on the United States and create “a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.”

Not recognizing the contradiction, however, Obama proposes the exact opposite solution for Afghanistan. Instead of letting the Afghans take “responsiblity for the security of their country,” he wants to make them even more dependent on American welfare:

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.

Obama’s Brave New World Order

FIN QUI la cronaca

Ma questa notizia viene da lontano….E ci riporta a 16 anni fa, quando il Caucaso era teatro di una crudele  guerra etnica (putroppo una delle tante)

Quando gli imperi vanno in briciole, le scheggie volano dappertutto e possono fare molto male…  E l'URSS non fa eccezione a questa regola!

Citando da Wikipedia:
(...)Il 21 febbraio 1992,il consiglio militare della Georgia annunciò che era abolita la costituzione dell'era sovietica e la restaurazione della costituzione del 1921 della Repubblica Democratica della Georgia. Molti abkhazi interpretarono questo come un abolizione del loro status autonomo. In risposta, il 23 luglio 1992, il governo dell'Abkhazia dichiarò a tutti gli effetti l'indipendenza, ma questo gesto non fu riconosciutò da nessun altro paese. Il governo georgiano accusò i sostenitori di Zviad Gamsakhurdia di aver rapito il ministro dell'interno georgiano e di tenerlo prigioniero in Abkhazia. Il governo georgiano dispiegò 3.000 soldati nella regione, ristabilendo apparentemente l'ordine. Un pesante fuoco tra le forze georgiane e la milizia abkhaza scoppiò dentro e fuori Sukhumi. Le autorità abkhaze rifiutarono le pretese del governo, sostenendo che fosse semplicemente un pretesto per una invasione. Dopo circa una settimana di combattimenti e molte perdite da entrambe le parti, le forze del governo georgiano riuscirono a prendere il controllo di gran parte dell'Abkhazia e chiusero il parlamento regionale.
La sconfitta militare degli abkhazi provocò una risposta ostile dalla autoproclamata Confederazione dei Popoli Montanari del Caucaso, una denominazione che riuniva vari movimenti anti-russi nel Caucaso del nord (ceceni, cosacchi, osseti e altri). Centinaia di volontari paramilitari provenienti dalla Russia, incluso l'allora sconosciuto Shamil Basayev si unirono ai separatisti abkhazi per combattere le forze del governo georgiano. A settembre, le forze abkhaze e i paramilitari russi, dopo l'interruzione del cessate-il-fuoco, iniziarono una forte offensiva che cacciò le forze georgiane fuori dalla repubblica. Il governo di Eduard Shevardnadze accusò la Russia di dare copertura militare ai ribelli con lo scopo di staccare dalla Georgia il suo territorio nativo e la terra di frontiera tra Georgia e Russia. L'anno 1992 terminò con i ribelli che controllavano la maggior parte del territorio ad ovest di Sukhumi. Episodi di "pulizia etnica" ci furono da entrambe le parti, con gli abkhazi espulsi dal territorio controllato dalla Georgia e viceversa; circa 3.000 persone furono uccise in questa prima fase di guerra. (...)

IL nazionalismo tuttavia non è la sola ragione

Con un anodino comunicato infatto la GAZPROM ha fatto sapere il 23 giugno scorso che avrebbe lanciato prospezioni in Abkhazia, fra le proteste dei georgiani.

Mi viene in mente una domanda: qui critichiamo Berluskaiser ed il suo "partito-azienda", ma perchè nessuno dice niente a Putin che ha creato (lui sì)  lo stato-partito-azienda ?

Tanto che adesso la Federazione Russa bisognerebbe chiamarla Gazpromija.....

Fonte info

Intanto i samurai dicono che è troppo pericoloso:

Il governo giapponese del primo ministro Yasuo Fukuda ha annunciato oggi che non invierà truppe e aerei in Afghanistan, come invece era stato preannunciato nelle scorse settimane. Una missione militare esplorativa nipponica in Afghanistan ha infatti concluso che la situazione sul campo è diventata troppo pericolosa. Gli Stati Uniti e la Nato avevano chiesto mesi fa a Tokyo, che già fornisce supporto navale e logistico alla guerra in Afghanistan, di mandare soldati e mezzi per aiutare le forze della Coalizione in difficoltà.

Noi invece si incrementa....
La povera gente continua a morire e fanno tutto questo in nostro nome:
l'art. 11 della Costituzione, gli aiuti umanitari, la democrazia, i diritti umani...
vengono continuamente calpestati dai vari governi di guerra che si succedono.

Ligi al ruolo di servi degli interessi imperialisti, liberticidi e guerrafondai degli americani
asserviti come loro alle lobby che producono strumenti di morte e distruzione in ogni parte del mondo.

E noi ? Noi che rifiutiamo tutto questo, resi pusillanimi da una finta democrazia, la gente non vuole la guerra ma la si fa lo stesso e la si finanzia con i soldi di tutti, adducendo false giustificazioni umanitarie o spettri terroristici costruiti ad arte, per permettere di dare sfogo agli istinti belluini di persone che avrebbero fatto meglio in altri campi,
meno sanguinari e omicidi, se davvero si ha nel cuore di aiutare l'altro non lo si fa con le armi.

La manipolazione delle coscienze operata dalla propaganda continua: il pericolo sono i terroristi barbuti  e mentre si dice di combatterli, si uccidono intere famiglie e comunità: a matrimoni, funerali, feste...piomba sempre qualche missile che porta la libertà: La libertà di MORIRE

UP
Per chi volesse capire un'altro dei motivi della guerra in Iraq:

Il comando militare degli Stati Uniti in Iraq sta valutando la possibilità di aprire una base aerea nei presso della città di Halbaja, al confine con l'Iran. I militari Usa avrebbero chiesto alle autorità locali curde di utilizzare un ampio appezzamento di terreno vicino alla città. I dirigenti del comune di Halbaja hanno confermato la richiesta del comando Usa, ma escludono un uso militare della base aerea. ''La decisione è quella di aprire un aeroporto internazionale in questa zona. Abbiamo già concesso un vasto terreno per realizzarlo e abbiamo inviato la documentazione al governo del Kurdistan iracheno'', ha comunicato il sindaco di Halbaja.

NdR: la fonte delle notizie è www.peacereporter.net

The military has created a wall of silence around its frequent resort to barbaric practices, including torture, and goes out of its way to avoid legal scrutiny.

Five photographs together break a silence. The first is of a former Gurkha regimental sergeant major, Tul Bahadur Pun, aged 87. He sits in a wheelchair outside 10 Downing Street. He holds a board full of medals, including the Victoria Cross, the highest award for bravery, which he won serving in the British army.

He has been refused entry to Britain and treatment for a serious heart ailment by the National Health Service: outrages rescinded only after a public campaign. On 25 June, he came to Downing Street to hand his Victoria Cross back to the Prime Minister, but Gordon Brown refused to see him.

The second photograph is of a 12-year-old boy, one of three children. They are Kuchis, nomads of Afghanistan. They have been hit by Nato bombs, American or British, and nurses are trying to peel away their roasted skin with tweezers. On the night of 10 June, NATO planes struck again, killing at least 30 civilians in a single village: children, women, schoolteachers, students. On 4 July, another 22 civilians died like this. All, including the roasted children, are described as “militants” or “suspected Taliban”. The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, says the invasion of Afghanistan is “the noble cause of the 21st century”.

The third photograph is of a computer-generated aircraft carrier not yet built, one of two of the biggest ships ever ordered for the Royal Navy. The £4bn contract is shared by BAE Systems, whose sale of 72 fighter jets to the corrupt tyranny in Saudi Arabia has made Britain the biggest arms merchant on earth, selling mostly to oppressive regimes in poor countries. At a time of economic crisis, Browne describes the carriers as “an affordable expenditure”.

The fourth photograph is of a young British soldier, Gavin Williams, who was “beasted” to death by three non-commissioned officers. This “informal summary punishment”, which sent his body temperature to more than 41 degrees, was intended to “humiliate, push to the limit and hurt”. The torture was described in court as a fact of army life.

The final photograph is of an Iraqi man, Baha Mousa, who was tortured to death by British soldiers. Taken during his post-mortem, it shows some of the 93 horrific injuries he suffered at the hands of men of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment who beat and abused him for 36 hours, including double-hooding him with hessian sacks in stifling heat. He was a hotel receptionist. Although his murder took place almost five years ago, it was only in May this year that the Ministry of Defence responded to the courts and agreed to an independent inquiry. A judge has described this as a “wall of silence.”

A court martial convicted just one soldier of Mousa’s “inhumane treatment”, and he has since been quietly released. Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, representing the families of Iraqis who have died in British custody, says the evidence is clear — abuse and torture by the British army is systemic.

Shiner and his colleagues have witness statements and corroborations of prima facie crimes of an especially atrocious kind usually associated with the Americans. “The more cases I am dealing with, the worse it gets,” he says. These include an “incident” near the town of Majar al-Kabir in 2004, when British soldiers executed as many as 20 Iraqi prisoners after mutilating them. The latest is that of a 14-year-old boy who was forced to simulate anal and oral sex over a prolonged period.

“At the heart of the US and UK project,” says Shiner, “is a desire to avoid accountability for what they want to do. Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary renditions are part of the same struggle to avoid accountability through jurisdiction.” British soldiers, he says, use the same torture techniques as the Americans and deny that the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on Torture apply to them. And British torture is “commonplace”: so much so, that “the routine nature of this ill-treatment helps to explain why, despite the abuse of the soldiers and cries of the detainees being clearly audible, nobody, particularly in authority, took any notice.”

Unbelievably, says Shiner, the Ministry of Defence under Tony Blair decided that the 1972 Heath government’s ban on certain torture techniques applied only in the UK and Northern Ireland. Consequently, “many Iraqis were killed and tortured in UK detention facilities”. Shiner is working on 46 horrific cases.

A wall of silence has always surrounded the British military, its arcane rituals, rites and practices and, above all, its contempt for the law and natural justice in its various imperial pursuits. For 80 years, the Ministry of Defence and compliant ministers refused to countenance posthumous pardons for terrified boys shot at dawn during the slaughter of the First World War. British soldiers used as guinea pigs during the testing of nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean were abandoned, as were many others who suffered the toxic effects of the 1991 Gulf War. The treatment of Gurkha Tul Bahadur Pun is typical. Having been sent back to Nepal, many of these “soldiers of the Queen” have no pension, are deeply impoverished and are refused residence or medical help in the country for which they fought and for which 43,000 of them have died or been injured. The Gurkhas have won no fewer than 26 Victoria Crosses, yet Browne’s “affordable expenditure” excludes them.

An even more imposing wall of silence ensures that the British public remains largely unaware of the industrial killing of civilians in Britain’s modern colonial wars. In his landmark work Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, the historian Mark Curtis uses three main categories: direct responsibility, indirect responsibility and active inaction.

“The overall figure [since 1945] is between 8.6 and 13.5 million,” Curtis writes, “Of these, Britain bears direct responsibility for between four million and six million deaths. This figure is, if anything, likely to be an underestimate. Not all British interventions have been included, because of lack of data.” Since his study was published, the Iraq death toll has reached, by reliable measure, a million men, women and children.

The spiraling rise of militarism within Britain is rarely acknowledged, even by those alerting the public to legislation attacking basic civil liberties, such as the recently drafted Data Communications Bill, which will give the government powers to keep records of all electronic communication. Like the plans for identity cards, this is in keeping what the Americans call “the national security state”, which seeks the control of domestic dissent while pursuing military aggression abroad. The £4bn aircraft carriers are to have a “global role”. For global read colonial. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office follow Washington’s line almost to the letter, as in Browne’s preposterous description of Afghanistan as a noble cause. In reality, the US-inspired NATO invasion has had two effects: the killing and dispossession of large numbers of Afghans, and the return of the opium trade, which the Taliban had banned. According to Hamid Karzai, the west’s puppet leader, Britain’s role in Helmand Province has led directly to the return of the Taliban.

The militarizing of how the British state perceives and treats other societies is vividly demonstrated in Africa, where ten out of 14 of the most impoverished and conflict-ridden countries are seduced into buying British arms and military equipment with “soft loans.” Like the British royal family, the British Prime Minister simply follows the money. Having ritually condemned a despot in Zimbabwe for “human rights abuses” — in truth, for no longer serving as the west’s business agent - and having obeyed the latest US dictum on Iran and Iraq, Brown set off recently for Saudi Arabia, exporter of Wahhabi fundamentalism and wheeler of fabulous arms deals.

To complement this, the Brown government is spending £11bn of taxpayers’ money on a huge, privatized military academy in Wales, which will train foreign soldiers and mercenaries recruited to the bogus “war on terror”. With arms companies such as Raytheon profiting, this will become Britain’s “School of the Americas,” a center for counter-insurgency (terrorist) training and the design of future colonial adventures.

It has had almost no publicity.

Of course, the image of militarist Britain clashes with a benign national regard formed, wrote Tolstoy, “from infancy, by every possible means — class books, church services, sermons, speeches, books, papers, songs, poetry, monuments [leading to] people stupefied in the one direction”. Much has changed since he wrote that. Or has it? The shabby, destructive colonial war in Afghanistan is now reported almost entirely through the British army, with squaddies always doing their Kipling best, and with the Afghan resistance routinely dismissed as “outsiders” and “invaders”. Pictures of nomadic boys with NATO-roasted skin almost never appear in the press or on television, nor the after-effects of British thermobaric weapons, or “vacuum bombs,” designed to suck the air out of human lungs. Instead, whole pages mourn a British military intelligence agent in Afghanis tan, because she happens to have been a 26-year-old woman, the first to die in active service since the 2001 invasion.

Baha Mousa, tortured to death by British soldiers, was also 26 years old. But he was different. His father, Daoud, says that the way the Ministry of Defence has behaved over his son’s death convinces him that the British government regards the lives of others as “cheap”. And he is right.

John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time (Bantam/Random House, 2006).

It has not always been so hard to map the frontiers of North Atlantic Treaty Organization country foreign policy beyond which US imperialism goes it alone. Nor, until now, have NATO countries' relations with Israel encroached so blatantly on the enduring symbiosis between Israel's militarist aggression and the US government's militarist imperialism. If it is clear by now that US power and influence is less than it was even ten years ago, what might be the implications for how NATO is used and abused in terms of shifting international economic relations and, in particular, the diverse processes of corporate globalization?

A banal anecdote may help set those questions in some kind of manageable framework. Back in 1993, the Irish government, like many other Western European governments got on the transparency and participation bandwagon prior to that year's UN Human Rights Conference in Vienna. So a bunch of NGOs working on a broad range of human rights matters were invited to a preparatory meeting in Iveagh House, the Department of Foreign Affairs' building on St Stephen's Green in Dublin. We all sat about a large conference table along with various DFA staff and an avuncular guy informally dressed who turned out to be an important member of the Irish government delegation to the United Nations.

While some of the discussion turned around the terms and logistics of Irish government funding to send a few representatives from Irish NGOs to the Vienna conference, much of it turned around the realities of Irish diplomatic policy, especially its policy within the UN. People anxious about Irish collusion with the United States and the NATO bloc pointed out that, in the early 1980s, Ireland and France were the only Western European countries to recognize the FMLN in El Salvador as a legitimate belligerent force. Many of us naively hoped it might be possible to resume and sustain such independence from NATO bloc foreign policy.

The fellow from the the Irish delegation to the UN scotched that with a couple of points. Firstly, he pointed out that Ireland's broad economic and political relations set Ireland irrevocably within what he called the Western Bloc of countries that shared common interests and generally worked together at the UN. Someone's observation that Ireland perhaps had at least as much in common with other former colonies, now members of the Non-Aligned Movement, was met with the argument that times had changed since Ireland's membership of the European Economic Community in the 1970s. The second point the member of Ireland's UN delegation made was that small countries like Ireland could work most effectively from within the system, lobbying, essentially, to secure the least worst outcome on any given issue.

Those were the days of the New World Order when a peace dividend was supposedly going to transform international relations after the end of the Cold War. But even then that meeting itself revealed an important part of what was in fact going on. The main Western powers were co-opting smaller countries with aid and trade benefits. Ireland received over 8bn Euros from 1993 onwards from the European Union Structural and Cohesion Funds. On the back of that massive inward infrastructure and social investment, US multinationals piled into Ireland to take advantage of a well-educated, English-speaking workforce inside the European Union, at the time cheaper to locate into than the United Kingdom. Cue : Irish economic miracle.

And within countries like Ireland, as also in the wealthier European NATO member countries - former colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Belgium - an internal process of co-option was under way bringing NGOs on board to serve more than ever as the soft arm of Western Bloc and NATO country foreign policy. All that "aid" that never seems to change much but gives a warm humanitarian gloss to anti-humanitarian NATO country economic and financial exploitation of their former colonies. It has often been noted, but it bears repeating, that if one looks at many, especially the larger, of these so-called "non-governmental" organizations much of their funding, sometimes even the majority of it, comes directly from governmental sources, national development cooperation programmes for example, or the various budget lines of outfits like the European Commission.

It may be worth adding as a kind of footnote that the UN Vienna Human Rights Conference took place as planned and issued its declaration. That declaration was almost immediately negated just about anywhere one cared to look. It tended to be ignored in high profile crises from Iraq and East Timor, to Rwanda and the Congo, the former Yugoslavia, Palestine. On a more mundane level, its ratification of the Right to Development has been ignominiously junked. Reading it again reminds one of how far aspirations have fallen in just fifteen years. Now we regard it as a victory if some court in a Western Bloc country reaffirms the illegality of torture or the primacy of habeas corpus.

So then, knowing that in the early 1990s those processes were going on, one can trace their development to the present day. Now a country like Ireland offers untrammelled passage via Shannon airport to US military torturers and mass-murderers en route to and from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and other countries whose peoples have fallen victim to the bogus global war on terror. Various EU country governments collaborated secretly for years in CIA torture flights. Recently NATO country member Greece, gave Israel permission to use its airspace for major military refuelling manoeuvres involving around 100 aircraft, preparatory to a possible strike against Iran.

The European Union recently upgraded its relations with Israel with a view to Israel's future integration into the European Single Market. This comes at a time when the European Union has deliberately collaborated in the collective punishment of the population of Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. The military forces of its NATO country members are in southern Lebanon, in effect defending what Israel defines as its northern borders against Hizbollah. All this indicates that the European Union is at least as committed as the United States government to defending whatever abuse of the Palestinians' fundamental rights Israel chooses to inflict.

It probably does not matter whether they are doing that on principle or in response to possible nuclear blackmail by Israel, along the lines of "ratify our land-grab aggression against the Palestinians or we'll go crazy and use nuclear weapons against our enemies". The motive is insignificant compared to the continuing catastrophe being inflicted on a people supposedly under the protection of the United Nations. The very powers legally obliged to protect the Palestinians are collaborating in their slow destruction and rewarding their destroyers with economic, social and cultural incentives.

Likewise in the case of Iran one is constantly presented with a mid-Atlantic dramatic confection whereby EU "good cop" Javier Solana cajoles and coaxes the recalcitrant supect, Iran, while "bad cop" Dick Cheney fumes and seethes out in the corridor waiting to use special interrogation techniques, like bombing the country to smithereens. The Israeli government is regularly cast as the wicked vizier, cynically egging on a supposedly reluctant US government to this act of potential self-destruction. The many similarities with the prequel to Iraq are very disturbing.

But remember that when President Jean Bertrand Aristide was deposed in Haiti in 2004, that coup was managed by Canada, France and the United States - all NATO countries - with diplomatic backing from all the Western Bloc countries at the UN. When Pedro "the Brief" Carmona staged his abortive coup in Venezuela in April 2002, US ships offered supportive observation of the move from Dutch bases in Aruba and Curaçao. Spain gave immediate diplomatic support. Plan Balboa, military manoeuvres carried out in 2001 in which a country identical to Venezuela is invaded in support of a country identical to Colombia, was a NATO exercise.

NATO is supplementing US forces in Afghanistan. The International Security Assistance force is led by NATO and had 53,000 troops in Afghanistan in June this year in addition to over 14,000 US troops under a separate command. NATO's presence in Afghanistan is part of the process of transforming its role from one of European defence into one of global intervention. It is hard to see that role as anything other than one of military enforcement not just of US imperialism but of Western Bloc imperialism of which corporate globalization is the commercial and economic engine via Free Trade Treaties with the United States and Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Union.

Occasionally one comes across articles on economic competition between the US and the European Union or about conflicts over monetary policy between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. Superficial spats over specific policy issues indeed exist. But it is unlikely that the US and the European Union are not collaborating intimately in every sphere not just to keep their corporate consumer capitalist system from failing but to reinforce it as an enduringly dominant corporate global presence. That, after all, is surely the point of the endless G7 liasion and coordination which goes on all year round in committees, punctuated by periodic summits.

If one looks at money supply, for example, the US monetary system is devaluing the dollar by issuing money and credit at a rate of over 16% a year. The ECB, Bank of Japan and the Bank of England are all helping keep their currencies in a steady relationship with the US dollar, issuing money and credit at about 10%-11% a year. Money velocity in the economic areas concerned may mitigate devaluation effects, but the inflationary consequences of such policies must surely be contributing to the general price inflation being experienced internationally.

Another area where US and EU policy is in harmony is migration. Widespread rejection and condemnation greeted news that the European Parliament had approved the Return Directive, applying harsh Europe-wide rules to illegal immigrants. President Ignacio da Silva of Brazil remarked of the measure, "The cold wind of xenophobia is again bringing false solutions to the challenges of the economy and society." In the US, steadily more restrictive measures are being applied to illegal immigrants across the country. Immigration policy there is symbolised by well-received proposals for a 2000 mile long anti-immigration barrier along the US border with Mexico.

So while the rich countries that promote corporate globalization demand poorer countries give big multinational corporations greater market access on extremely advantageous investment terms, people in poorer countries are denied the chance to exploit one of the few valuable resources they have - their labour. Capital must be free to move wherever it likes. But its victims had better stay put. Here, class meets race. Middle-class and working-class people in rich countries resent poor immigrants desperate to improve their families' lives back in countries out of whose ruthless exploitation the rich countries historically accrued their current advantage in the first place.

It may well be time to start taking NATO's role as an aspiring global enforcer of Western Bloc economic strategy more seriously. However true it may be to argue that it is still the United States government that makes the running, the US is less and less able to do so without the willing support of its allies. Their joint global military activity can well be interpreted as an effort to compensate for the growing discomfort they feel at the increasing power and influence of other countries like China and Russia, globally, and Iran and Venezuela regionally.

If Israel does strike targets alleged to be nuclear sites in Iran it will do so not just in a context of US government support. The European Union and NATO clearly support Israel's provocative military preparations, as the manouevres in Greek airspace indicate. Similarly, in the Caribbean Both the European Union and the United States are hostile to the ALBA countries led by Venezuela and Cuba. It may be that Iran and Venezuela are viewed with hostility by the United States and the European Union for different reasons. Iran for its uncompromising insistence on legitimate development of its nuclear programme and Venezuela for its uncompromising insistence on a fair deal from US and European energy multinationals.

But it may equally be that Venezuela, Cuba and Iran are regarded with hostility for the very same reasons. Firstly because they are all relatively vulnerable countries, compared to China and Russia, that reject Western Bloc economic domination. Secondly because Iran and Venezuela are important energy suppliers to Western Bloc competitors like China and India whom the United States and its European Union allies want to pressure one way or another into doing what they want. While Cuba's health and education worldwide cooperation programmes put Western Bloc "aid" to shame.

On that wider view, a global view of the kind that the major multinational corporations and their political front persons perhaps take, then the respective roles of the United States, of the European Union countries who are also members of NATO, of NATO's Pacific allies like Australia and Japan, of Israel, look less clearcut. And if such reasoning is accurate then any strike by Israel against Iran will be one that has been negotiated not just with the Bush regime but with the leaders of the European Union too.

The Venezuelan government may well react to any conflict resulting from an Israeli strike against Iran with oil sanctions against the United States. If it does, then the recently reactivated US Fourth Fleet is likely to be mobilised along with the US Southern Command's other extensive regional resources against Venezuela in support of whatever contingency plans the United States and its NATO allies have already worked out with the Venezuelan opposition and the Colombian government along the lines of Plan Balboa. Cuba too would become a more vulnerable target. All of this would certainly be supported by Western Bloc countries against the futile opposition of the UN General Assembly.

This stuff of nightmares may seem completely far-fetched and improbable. The murder of 1000 Lebanese by Israeli airpower with the acquiescence of the Western Bloc powers seemed improbable in 2006. The death of over one million Iraqis and the displacement of another 2 million with the acquiescence of the Western Bloc powers seemed improbable in 2003. The collusion of the Western Bloc powers in 4 million deaths in the Congo may seem improbable to anyone who has not read the numbingly horrifying accounts of that conflict and its context. Western Bloc collusion in the destruction of a whole people dragged out for over 60 years in Palestine might have seemed improbable once upon a time. But it is all true.

toni solo writes for tortillaconsal.com

In 14 landmines explosions 32 British invader terrorists killed in Helmand

Wednesday afternoon 16-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with remote controlled landmines blew up three tanks of British occupation army when they were patrolling in Torshah, Charkhkian areas of Sangin district of Helmand province. In the explosions all three tanks were completely destroyed and twelve invader terrorists in them were killed. Also at the same time Mujahideen exploded eleven landmines targeting a foot patrolling unit of British army in the Bazaar of the same district, in which twenty invader terrorists were killed and a large number of them were also wounded.

Reported by Qari Muhammad Yousuf

11 British invader terrorists killed and 2 tanks blown up in Helmand

Thursday morning 17-07-2008 at approximately 9 am local time,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with remote controlled landmines blew up a tank of British occupation army when it was patrolling in Shor Kaoah area of Sangin district of Helmand province. In the explosion the tank was completely destroyed and six invader terrorists in it were killed. Also at the same time Mujahideen blew up a tank of British invaders in Mermandab area of Grishk district of the same province, in which five invader terrorists were killed.

Reported by Qari Muhammad Yousuf

4 vehicles of puppet army destroyed and 12 terrorists killed in Paktia

Thursday morning 17-07-2008 at approximately 8 am local time,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, ambushed a convoys of puppet army on Khost and Gardiz highway in Ghorgi area of Wazi Zadran district of Paktia province. In the ambush four pickups were destroyed, twelve puppet terrorists were killed, few were wounded and their arms were Mujahideen booty.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

8 puppet army terrorists killed and 2 pickups destroyed in Ghazni

Thursday morning 17-07-2008 at approximately 8:30 am local time,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, ambushed a convoy of puppet army in Zawaj area of Ghazni city. In the ambush one pickup was destroyed, four puppet terrorists were killed, few were wounded and their arms were Mujahideen booty. Also in Nazar Khan area of the same district, Mujahideen attacked a vehicle of puppet police, in the attack the pickup was destroyed and four puppet terrorists were killed and two were wounded.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

7 puppet army terrorists killed and 1 vehicle destroyed in Kunduz

Wednesday afternoon 16-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with remote controlled landmines blew up a vehicle of puppet army in Kharoto area of Char Dara district of Kunduz province. The landmines completely destroyed the vehicle and seven puppet terrorists in it were killed.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

A vehicle of puppet army destroyed in Kandahar

Wednesday afternoon 16-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with remote controlled landmines blew up a vehicle of puppet army in Belandi area of Danad district of Kandahar province. The landmines completely destroyed the vehicle and all the puppet terrorists in it were killed.

Reported by Qari Muhammad Yousuf

BM's Mortars shells fired at Kabul city

Wednesday night 16-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, fired four BM's Mortar shells at a puppet army base in Skart hell of Kabul city, where a large number of puppet army officers live, however the damages and casualties to the enemy of Islam could not be confirmed in there entireties.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

A checkpoint of puppet police demolished and 2 puppet terrorists killed in Farah

Wednesday at morning 16-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with heavy and light weapons attacked puppet police checkpoint in near the bazaar of Frahrod district of Farah province. In attack the checkpoint was demolished, two puppet terrorists were killed and their arms were booty Mujahideen.

Tuesday night 15-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, attacked Ghafar checkpoint on Herat Herat highway in Delaram district of the same province, in which the post was damaged but the casualties of enemy were not reported.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

These operations were part of Ibrat (lesson) Plan, which was declared by Mulla Birader (may Allah protect him), deputy of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

O, Revealer of The Book, Mover of the clouds, Destroy the co-coalition the enemies of Islam terrorists

O Allah, make them and their weaponry a booty for the Mujahideen

O Allah, you are our support and you are our only Victor; by your order we attack; by your order we retreat and by your order we fight

O Allah, the sky is yours; the earth is yours; the sea is yours, so whatever forces they have in the sky, drop them. Destroy all their forces in earth and sink all their forces in sea

O Allah, deal with them for verily they can never disable you

O Allah, retaliate upon them, afflict them like you did to Pharaoh and his nation

O Allah afflict their country with floods, make them in need of money and food and persons

O Allah defeat them, destroy them O the All-Strong, the All-Mighty

Allahu Akbar

Honor, Power and Glory belong to Allah, His Messenger and the believers, but the hypocrites know not

A helicopter of American Christian occupation military shot down in Paktia

Wednesday morning 16-07-2008,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate Afghanistan, shot down an American invaders helicopter with anti-aircraft rocket in Zormat district of Paktia province, in which all the American terrorists onboard were killed, the copter was shot down when it was patrolling in the area.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

9 puppet police terrorists killed in Helmand

Wednesday morning 16-07-2008 at approximately 10:10 am local time,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with remote controlled landmines blew up a ranger vehicle of puppet army in Kandahar Ada area of Lashkargah city of Helmand province. The landmines completely destroyed the vehicle and all nine puppet terrorists in it were killed.

Reported by Qari Muhammad Yousuf

21 supplying trucks of American invaders destroyed in Kandahar

Wednesday morning 16-07-2008 at approximately 8 am local time,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, ambushed a supplying convoy of American occupation army and its puppet police who were providing security for the convoy which was traveling on Herat and Kandahar highway in Pashmol area of Zhari district of Kandahar. In the attack four pickups of puppet police were destroyed.

Wednesday morning 16-07-2008 at approximately 8:30 am local time,

another group of Mujahideen attacked the same convoy in Sartak area of the same district, in this attack fifteen supplying vehicles of American and two pickups of puppet army were destroyed and few terrorists were killed and a large number of them were wounded.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

2 Tanks of American invaders destroyed, base demolished and 6 invader terrorists killed in Kunar

Tuesday evening 15-07-2008 at approximately 7 pm local time,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, attacked a base of American invaders army in Dewa Gul area of Kunar province. In the attack a firefight started which lasted for one hour, in which the base was demolished, two tanks were completely destroyed and six invader terrorists in them tanks were killed and others were wounded.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

A police station demolished and 3 terrorists killed in Laghman

Tuesday evening 15-07-2008 at approximately 8 pm local time ,

Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with heavy and light weapons attacked Brishna kot puppet police station in Kandahar city. In the attack the checkpoint were demolished, three puppet terrorists were killed, Commander of station Zmari and 5 other puppets were wounded and their arms were Mujahideen booty.

Reported by Zabihuallah Mujahid

From one week Kandahar-Uruzgan highway blocked

Tuesday 15-07-2008,

Since last week, Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan of Afghanistan, had blocked the Kandahar-Uruzgan highway, in the process stranded the enemies convoys in Bakhto, Boragan Yelbekan and areas of Shah Wali kot district of Kandahar province. Tuesday 15-07-2008, the kafirs attacked the Mujahideen, trying to reopen the highway but their attack was defeated, a vehicle and their arms were Mujahideen booty, the highway is still blocked for all invaders military convoys.

Reported by Qari Muhammad Yousuf

These operations were part of Ibrat (lesson) Plan, which was declared by Mulla Birader (may Allah protect him), deputy of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

O, Revealer of The Book, Mover of the clouds, Destroy the co-coalition the enemies of Islam terrorists

O Allah, make them and their weaponry a booty for the Mujahideen

O Allah, you are our support and you are our only Victor; by your order we attack; by your order we retreat and by your order we fight

O Allah, the sky is yours; the earth is yours; the sea is yours, so whatever forces they have in the sky, drop them. Destroy all their forces in earth and sink all their forces in sea

O Allah, deal with them for verily they can never disable you

O Allah, retaliate upon them, afflict them like you did to Pharaoh and his nation

O Allah afflict their country with floods, make them in need of money and food and persons

O Allah defeat them, destroy them O the All-Strong, the All-Mighty

Allahu Akbar

Honor, Power and Glory belong to Allah, His Messenger and the believers, but the hypocrites know not

Pakistan is coming under increasing pressure to crack down on cross border militant attacks.  Read about it here.

US spokesman Sean McCormack told newsmen in Washington that the Russian point of view makes no difference to NATO when it votes on whether a country qualifies to join its membership action program or how soon that or other country may be allowed to join that programme. Mr McCormack said nothing new, and, to be frank, had nothing new to say about the matter in question. All he did was to confirm the official position of the White House and NATO. He said that in response to a journalist’s request for comment on the new concept for the foreign policy of the Russian Federation, endorsed last Tuesday by President Dmitri Medvedev. That new document highlights Russian displeasure over the enlargement of NATO, especially its plans to expand into the Ukraine and Georgia.

Let me point out, in regard to this, that the Russian position has been constant since the times of President Putin, which demonstrates continuity in the Kremlin strategy. That has absolutely nothing to do with attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of NATO and veto its decisions. That would, of course, be completely absurd. NATO has a charter of its own, and protects its own and its members’ interests.

But, if we continue this chain of logic and follow it to its conclusion, we will unavoidably arrive at the equally obvious conclusion that Russia must protect its own national interests. Before Russia approved plans for the reunification of Germany, it was assured that NATO would refrain from expanding eastwards. What has happened since then is no secret. The NATO war machine has rolled up to the border of Russia. The USA is thinking in terms of building military bases in Bulgaria and Rumania, deploying ten ABM missile silos in Poland, and constructing a radar station in the Czech Republic. There is speculation on the possible basing of the ABM missile silos in Lithuania instead of Poland. At the same time, the USA and the other members of NATO refuse to ratify the Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe. Russia did so a long time ago.

Taking such considerations into account, Moscow cannot afford to ignore the latest developments. Therefore, it presents its position with the utmost frankness and speaks of its possible responses in terms of diplomacy or military action. As we can see, it is not words and intentions, but, concrete actions that count in politics. Moscow believes that the various aspects of continental and, yes, even global security are intertwined and indivisible. It is impossible to protect your interests by harming the interests of another nation. NATO is running on inertia, irreversibly mired in the Cold War period. However, Russia invites the United States and its allies to sign a legally-binding pan-European security agreement. President Medvedev brought that point up at his meeting on Wednesday meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano.

17 July 2008

Viktor Yenikeyev

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=rus&q=77367&cid=19&p=17.07.2008 (in Russian)

What's the matter with Russia and Georgia? The latest increase in tensions, and I'm not talking about the shooting down of unmanned spy-planes, does not appear to be a cyclical high, but a systematic trend toward escalation. Ever since NATO's failure in Bucharest to extend a Membership Action Plan to Georgia (also Macedonia and Ukraine), Moscow has stepped up its military actions against Tbilisi.

At first, it denied involvement by, for example, claiming that it was Abkhazia's air force rather than RFAF that kept shooting down Georgia's aircraft. Now it openly admits being involved.

Why is Russia behaving this way? Here is Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili speaking in Yalta, Ukraine:

Georgia is a test case," adding, "Today, Georgia. Tomorrow, Ukraine and then other countries in the region that they [the Russians] see as falling within their sphere of influence. They will be looking carefully at the Western reaction and will act accordingly.

Russia's reply: it was angered by Georgia's hopes to join NATO and the European Union and said it acted to defend the breakaway regions from Georgian aggression.

What aggression is not clear. Presumably, Georgia's flying unmanned aircraft over its sovereign territory was interpreted by Russia as "aggression." More unsettling for Moscow however is Tbilisi's application to join NATO.

In that case, what does Russia want?Alexander Rondeli, at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS), has the following take on it in an article for openDemocracy.

Russia wants Georgia to remain within its political, military and economical orbit. But what can Russia offer: democracy, prosperity, security, protection? Russia wants to keep Georgia for itself but Georgia wants to escape from the claws of the former “big brother”. Georgia is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional society and it has to become a genuine democracy in order for it to survive as a viable nation-state. Thus it is a strategic imperative that impels its core national goal - to join the European and Euro-Atlantic structures; rather than (as it is often assumed to be) Russophobia.

Rondeli then goes on to note another reality of European diplomacy - the tepid diplomatic involvement of Europe as a mediating party between Moscow and Tbilisi.

At the same time, western well-wishers routinely turn a blind eye to this unequal confrontation, with the smell of oil and gas prevailing over feelings of sympathy and understanding.

Here is why Europe needs to be involved, according to the Financial Times (FT):

Georgia matters to the west because it is the current standard-bearer of the democratic revolt against Moscow that began in central Europe in 1989. While the flags of freedom flying in Tbilisi are stained by Mr Saakashvili’s authoritarian lapses, Georgia’s leaders still generally embrace democratic values. Also, Georgia straddles the only non-Russian route taking Caspian oil and gas to world markets. Lose Georgia, and Russia wins an even bigger say over energy supplies. The risks were highlighted by this week’s cut, for technical reasons, in Russian oil flows to the Czech Republic after Prague agreed to host part of the US missile shield.

Certainly, the west should try to engage Russia in talks over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as long as they are based on preserving Georgian sovereignty. It should also redouble efforts to restrain hotheads in Tbilisi from resorting to violence. But when Russia bullies Georgia. the west must back its vulnerable ally.

Do you think Rondeli is right or wrong? What about the FT? Voice your opinion in the comments.

The return of the some 250,000 Georgians is included in the first stage of a three-step peace plan proposed by Germany. This "good faith" measure would come along with statements by both sides pledging not to use force as a means of ending the dispute.

Lavrov said it is "absolutely unreal" to connect the repatriation measure with the statements against force.

[Presenter] For the first time Afghan President Hamed Karzai has lodged a strong protest against the foreign forces for civilian casualties and called the killing of civilians a big disaster for the government of Afghanistan. According to a report by Press TV, President Karzai denounced the killing of civilians in NATO air raids and called on NATO to exercise caution during the military operations, mainly the air operations in Afghanistan. The president also criticized the foreign troops for their negligence in launching and coordinating their operations. Karzai said that he made all possible efforts to end or at least minimize any damage to civilians during the operations by the foreign troops. But unfortunately, the efforts did not yield results because NATO and the US troops did not take such issues seriously.

This is the first that time President Karzai is using the word disaster for the killing of civilians in NATO air strikes. Afghan government officials, including the president, many times criticized the foreign forces for paying no attention to their recommendations but NATO, mainly the US officials, want to continue their own style in fighting terrorism. My colleague has arranged an interview with Mr Wahid Mozhda who hails the recent remarks by the president but says the foreign forces do not pay attention to the recommendations of the Afghan government.

[Observer] You are well-aware that there has been a rise in casualties of the foreign forces in Afghanistan. The foreign forces usually launch air strikes in retaliation for a Taleban ambush which kills their troops. They try to repress the Taleban through air strikes in the villages or areas where civilians are residing. The civilians most of the time become vulnerable to these attacks and the Taleban usually do not sustain big casualties.

I think the time has come for the foreign forces to change their policy. The way they are continuing the war, they will definitely lose it. Now even the president is fed up with all this. I appreciate the recent remarks by the president and of course this is not the first time that the president has criticized the foreign forces for their attack. Even some time ago, he [the president] appeared on TV with strong criticism against the foreign forces and clearly said that the foreign troops do not pay respect to the demands of the government of Afghanistan. It is a fact that the foreign forces in Afghanistan follow their own mandates and policies. They do not pay any respect to the national and Islamic principles of the people and government.

Another strange point is this that the coalition forces still stress their position on being right in the launch of such attacks. They claim that they have killed insurgents in their recent strikes in Nurestan and Nangarhar Provinces but even the government officials have confirmed that all those killed were civilians only.

[Reporter] You said that President Karzai has alerted the foreign forces many times but still they do not heed these requests. But this time he used the word disaster for NATO's air operations which resulted in the killing of civilians. Why are the foreign troops so inattentive to the demands of the Afghans and the government of this country?

[Observer] The foreign troops, mainly the US troops, have not come to Afghanistan to identify the bad and the good. They act independently and they have never been serious in avoiding civilian casualties. Afghanistan is currently under the invasion of the US government and neither the government nor the Afghans can make a wish or demand about their fate.

[Reporter] What will happen if the foreign troops continue their policies? I mean if they continue to target civilians in their attacks.

[Observer] The consequences are very clear. This will create a distance between the government and the people. Now the people really detest the foreign troops and in most of the cases, mainly in the southern and eastern provinces, the people fully cooperate with the Taleban. The Taleban, without the help of the people, could not grow to this extend. The distance between the government and the people is getting larger with each passing day.

[Reporter] As the last question, what is the solution for this? I mean how should the coalition forces alter on this.

[Observer] The UN and other agencies working for human rights should play their role. They should all condemn such killings and take up the issue with senior NATO officials. On the other hand, the government of Afghanistan should put more pressure on the US government. They should tell the US troops not to rely on any intelligence data. Some people might give them wrong intelligence. They should not rely on every piece of information. This is to the benefit of the Taleban. The Taleban might be involved in providing wrong intelligence to the foreign forces.

By Agence France Presse

The US-led coalition in Afghanistan admitted Wednesday to killing eight civilians during an air strike against militants, as an Afghan official said nine women and a boy had died.

A convoy had come under heavy attack from several houses during a routine patrol on Tuesday in the volatile Bakwa district of the southwestern province of Farah, the coalition said in a statement.

"The coalition convoy returned fire and called for close air support on the enemy positions. A house was hit; eight civilians were killed, two others injured," it said.

The deputy provincial governor Mohammad Younus Rasouli told AFP that a civilian house had been struck in the raid.

"Information from the area is that 12 civilians have been killed: nine women, two men and a boy," he said.

He said the international forces had been targeting "a large number" of Taliban from neighbouring Pakistan who had recently entered the area.

The coalition said it never intentionally targeted non-combatants and "deeply regret" any time civilians become casualties in action against insurgents.

The coalition and separate NATO-led International Security Assistance Force are also investigating official Afghan reports that 64 civilians were killed in two strikes in northeastern Afghanistan early this month.

Civilians are regularly caught in the crossfire of an insurgency launched after the hardline Islamic Taliban regime was removed from power in late 2001 in a US-led invasion.

Most are killed in rebel attacks but dozens have also been killed in military action this year. ]]> http://kecrila.wordpress.com/?p=23 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:34:40 +0000 kecrila http://kecrila.wordpress.com/?p=23 Fu concepito in un motel tra una bottiglia di whisky rotta e una Lucky Strike incenerita, vicino agli avanzi di un tramezzino al tonno. Nacque sul sedile posteriore di un taxi nel cortile di un ospedale, mentre il tassametro marciava. «Sono uscito dalla pancia di mamma che avevo bisogno di farmi la barba, così ho urlato: “Times Square, e schiaccia su quell’acceleratore”».Tra mito e realtà, tra alcool e sarcasmo, genio e follia, Tom Waits racconta la sua nascita, segno premonitore della sua poetica maledetta. Ribelle, trasgressivo, santo bevitore (più bevitore che santo, anche se dice di non toccare più whisky da una vita) col ghigno da profeta, estremo ...

Fonte: http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=276714

Local people said on Tuesday that the troops, backed by helicopter gunships, tanks and armoured personnel carriers, had been moved close to the border villages of Lawara, Mir Saffar, Shawal, Zhawar and Ghulam Khan in Waziristan. According to reports reaching here from across the border, the allied forces were being airlifted to the Saro Bagh area of Afghanistan’s Khost province. They have started building bunkers and fortifying their positions in the border areas for a possible showdown with the militants. Sources said that helicopters had increased surveillance flights and APCs and tanks were stationed in different areas to provide cover to troops.

The elders of North Waziristan Agency warned the American and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) forces against attack on the tribal areas. “We will resist any bid to attack on tribal areas with unity and force,” the elders including Malik Mohammad Afzal Darpakhel, Malik Mumtaz Khan, Malik Hazratullah, Malik Abdul Qadir Khan and Malik Safdar Hayat Khan told a press conference at the press club here Tuesday. Reacting to the fresh deployment of US and Nato forces to Pak-Afghan border and subsequently their movement in the area, they vowed to render any sacrifice for defence of the country and supremacy of Islam. “Three million armed tribesmen are ready to give a tit-for-tat response to the US-led Nato forces if they intrude into the tribal areas of Pakistan,” they warned, adding that they would fight shoulder-to-shoulder with Pakistan Army against the aggressors. They called upon the nation, particularly tribesmen to forge unity among their ranks to foil the nefarious designs of the foreign forces stationed across the border. They also demanded of the Pakistan Army to provide them latest weapons to guard the country’s frontiers.

But ofcourse this demand will go useless, because Pakistani army is now an apostate army, slave of Kuffars, they will rather prefer to fight along with Americans instead of fighting with them against their own people.