Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Is Pakistan Necessary To Have Onside To Win The War On Terror?
Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif briefs the media at the end of a three-day conference in Islamabad, Pakistan, Sep. 7, 2017. Asif says the war on terror “cannot be won by excluding or confronting” Islamabad.
VOA: Pakistan Says US Can’t Win War on Terror Without It
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan has vowed to stay engaged with the United States to help fight terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan, but said the war “cannot be won by excluding or confronting” Islamabad.
Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif made the remark Thursday at the end of a three-day conference of Pakistani ambassadors to key world capitals for formulating a comprehensive response to the new U.S. policy on Afghanistan.
U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Pakistan when he announced his long-awaited Afghan war policy last month. He accused Islamabad of harboring terrorists linked to the Taliban and Haqqani network, which are undermining U.S.-led efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and staging attacks on American forces.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Pakistan has been helpful .... especially after 9/11 .... but I cannot say that they have been helpful in the past few years. But to win the war against Islamic inspired terrorism is going to take a long time, and it will need to involve every country that has a large Muslim population. This includes countries like Saudi Arabia who promote Wahhabism, Iran and its support of groups like Hezbollah, and to countries like Pakistan that have a history of harboring many of these terror groups and their leaders. So yes .... Pakistan will be necessary .... as well as most Muslim dominated countries.
National Security Adviser McMaster Believes Saying 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' Isn't Helpful
The Guardian: Trump national security adviser wants to avoid term 'radical Islamic terrorism', sources say
HR McMaster felt phrase castigates ‘an entire religion’ and indicated ‘he’s not on board’ – a contrast with the president and many key staff members
Donald Trump’s new national security adviser has told staff at the White House he does not wish to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe the terrorist threat the US faces, according to multiple sources.
HR McMaster, a respected army lieutenant general, struck notes more consistent with traditional counterterrorism analysts and espoused consensus foreign-policy views during a meeting he held with his new National Security Council staff on Thursday.
Some in the meeting left with questions about whether McMaster’s evident disagreements with Trump and his key aides portend further turbulence for the key national security and foreign policy decision-making forum.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: H.R. McMaster's remarks are following this Pentagon statement .... Pentagon: Out with 'ISIL,' in with 'ISIS' (AP). What's my take .... Egyptian President Sisi has no problem in saying the term "Radical Islam" and pointing out its extremist elements .... Egypt's Sisi turns Islam on the Islamists (CBS).
More News On National Security Adviser McMaster's Remarks That 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' Isn't Helpful
National security adviser: Term 'radical Islamic terrorism' isn't helpful -- CNN
HR McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam -- New York Times
Trump’s National Security Adviser: Avoid Phrase Radical Islamic Terrorism -- Slate
Report: New national security adviser breaks with Trump on 'radical Islamic terrorism' -- The Hill
Trump's new national security adviser: Saying 'radical Islamic terrorism' is counterproductive -- Business Insider
In Break With Trump, National Security Adviser Pans the Use of ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ -- NYMag
The White House Has Given U.S. Special Forces The Authority To Hunt Foreign Fighters Globally
Army and Air Force troops train at a remote landing strip in Djibouti. Air Force photo
Washington Post: Obama administration expands elite military unit’s powers to hunt foreign fighters globally
The Obama administration is giving the elite Joint Special Operations Command — the organization that helped kill Osama bin Laden in a 2011 raid by Navy SEALs — expanded power to track, plan and potentially launch attacks on terrorist cells around the globe, a move driven by concerns of a dispersed terrorist threat as Islamic State militants are driven from strongholds in Iraq and Syria, U.S. officials said.
The missions could occur well beyond the battlefields of places like Iraq, Syria and Libya where Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has carried out clandestine operations in the past. When finalized, it will elevate JSOC from being a highly-valued strike tool used by regional military commands to leading a new multiagency intelligence and action force. Known as the “Counter-External Operations Task Force,” the group will be designed to take JSOC’s targeting model — honed over the last 15 years of conflict — and export it globally to go after terrorist networks plotting attacks against the West.
The creation of a new JSOC entity this late in the Obama’s tenure is the “codification” of best practices in targeting terrorists outside of conventional conflict zones, according to the officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations. It is unclear, however, if the administration of President-elect Donald Trump will keep this and other structures set up by Obama. They include guidelines for counterterrorism operations such as approval by several agencies before a drone strike and “near certainty” that no civilians will be killed. This series of presidential orders is known as the “playbook.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: It is interesting that this is happening only now .... near the end of the Obama administration.
The War On Terror Has Cost America $6 Trillion Since 9/11. Unfortunately, This 'War' Has Created 6500% More Terrorism
Kit O’Connell, Antimedia: The War on Terror Has Created 6500% More Terrorism
Washington, D.C. — An analysis of terror attacks since 2002 suggests U.S. efforts to combat terrorism — i.e., the “War on Terror” — have led to a dramatic increase in death and suffering from terrorism.
Published this year on Sept. 11, Paul Gottinger, a staff reporter for Reader Supported News, analyzed incidents of terrorism from George Bush declaring the war on terror in the aftermath of 9/11 through the present, and found a staggering 6,500 percent increase in terrorism. Gottinger, who used data provided by the State Department in his analysis, found that casualties have increased by 4,500 percent.
Countries occupied by or being bombed the U.S. military seem to fare worst of all:
WNU Editor: And these numbers keep on rising with no end in sight.
President Obama: 2 Qaeda Hostages Were Accidentally Killed In A U.S. Drone Strike In Pakistan In January
New York Times: 2 Qaeda Hostages Were Accidentally Killed in U.S. Strike, White House Says
WASHINGTON — The White House acknowledged on Thursday that two hostages held by Al Qaeda were accidentally killed in an American government counterterrorism operation in January and said President Obama “takes full responsibility.”
In an extraordinary statement, the White House said intelligence agencies had confirmed that Warren Weinstein, an American held by Al Qaeda since 2011, and Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian held since 2012, died during the operation.
“The operation targeted an al-Qaeda-associated compound, where we had no reason to believe either hostage was present, located in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan,” the statement said. “No words can fully express our regret over this tragedy.”
WNU Editor: I am suspicious with the timing of this news. It happened in January but they are reporting it now with the Clinton Foundation story just breaking out this morning. Makes you wonder on what is really happening. Wag the dog .... or a warning to the Clintons to get out of the Presidential race? As to what is my take .... I am astounded that the main stream media is doing something that I never thought they would do .... go after the Clintons and report (gasp) the news.
More News On 2 Qaeda Hostages Who Were Accidentally Killed In A January U.S. Drone Strike
American, Italian hostages inadvertently killed in U.S. operation: Obama -- Reuters
US admits al Qaeda operation killed an American and an Italian hostage -- France 24
American, Italian hostages killed in US drone strike -- AP
Obama: 'I profoundly regret' deaths of U.S., Italian hostages -- Reuters
U.S. drone strike killed al-Qaeda hostages, including American -- Washington Post
White House: American, Italian hostages killed in US counterterror operation -- FOX News
U.S. drone strike accidentally killed 2 hostages -- CNN
Obama: ‘I Take Full Responsibility’ For US Operation That Killed Innocent Hostages Held By Al Qaeda -- ABC News
White House: U.S. drone strikes killed two al Qaeda hostages -- CBS News
Obama takes 'full responsibility' for deaths of two hostages -- The Hill
US admits two hostages killed in al-Qaeda raid -- BBC
US drone strike killed American and Italian citizens held captive by al-Qaida -- The Guardian
Warren Weinstein Begged Obama to Save Him Four Years Before U.S. Drone Killed Him -- Daily Beast
SoCal Man Among Al-Qaida Operatives Killed In US Strike -- CBS
Family of American al-Qaeda hostage 'devastated' by his death -- USA Today
Wife criticizes U.S. approach to hostages' families -- CBS News
We may be tired of the war on terror, but the terrorists and their supporters aren't
Walter Russell Meade tries to connect the dots between several events that the Obama administration would like us to believe are not connected. Here's his conclusion.
But sometimes truth needs to be told. We are killing people in acts
of war across Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa and expect to
kill quite a few more. We are fighting a battle first to contain and
then to defeat a
US-Backed Terrorists Murder US' Own Ambassador in Libya
Murdered US Ambassador exposes US "pro-democracy" foreign policy - same terrorists US backs in Syria are behind the murder of US Ambassador in Libya.
by Tony Cartalucci
Update: The picture below of John McCain in Benghazi, during the violent military subversion of Libya in 2011, includes the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right, wearing a blue tie. Stevens has now become a victim of the very terrorists he played a role in creating. The caption below has been edited to reflect this information.
Editor's Note: With Russia openly accusing the West of using Al Qaeda as their direct, militant proxies in Syria and beyond, this latest attempt to purposefully provoke and incite Muslims across the Arab World is an attempt by the West to reestablish the perception that the US and Israel are at war with sectarian extremists, not partnered with them. The film allegedly at the center of the violence, most likely came from the Neo-Con "Clarion Fund" or a project of similar origin.
September 12, 2012 - "I have met with these brave fighters, and they are not Al-Qaeda. To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation. We should help them do it." - Senator John McCain in Benghazi, Libya April 22, 2011.
Image: Senator John McCain (with the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right with blue tie) in the terrorist rat nest of Benghazi after marshaling cash, weapons, and political support for militants tied directly to Al Qaeda. McCain's insistence that the terrorists he helped arm and install into power were "not Al Qaeda" runs contra to the US Army's own reports which state that Benghazi's terror brigades officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007. McCain's "Libyan patriots" have now killed US Ambassador Stevens with weapons most likely procured with cash and logistic networks set up by NATO last year, part of a supranational terror campaign that includes violently subverting Syria - a campaign McCain also supports.
McCain's "Libyan patriots" have now murdered US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens in the very city McCain spoke these words. An assault on the American consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the epicenter of not only last year's violent subversion and destruction of sovereign Libya, but a decade's old epicenter of global terrorism, left Ambassador Stevens dead along with reportedly three others.
The violence, Western media claims, stems from an anti-Islamic film produced in the US. In reality, the coordinated nature of the attacks on both the US Embassy in Libya, as well as its embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, are most likely using the Neo-Conservative Clarion Fund-esque propaganda film as a false pretense for violence long-planned. The Clarion Fund regularly produces anti-Muslim propaganda, like "Iranium," specifically to maintain a strategy of tension using fear and anger to drive a wedge between Western civilization and Islam to promote perpetual global wars of profit.
NATO Knowingly Handed Libya to Al Qaeda
Indeed, the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) noted that Benghazi and the neighboring city of Darnah served a disproportionately high role in supplying foreign fighters to wage terror against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan - foot soldiers brought in to fuel a destructive and divisive sectarian war that undermined a united Sunni-Shi'ia resistance to Western troops who had invaded.
Image: In Benghazi, in front of the very courthouse McCain and other representatives of the West's corporate-financier driven foreign policy voiced support for Libya's terror brigades, sectarian extremists took the streets waving the flag of Al Qaeda, even hoisting it atop the Benghazi courthouse itself. Despite a concerted effort by Western media houses to portray Libya as in the hands of progressive democratic secularists, the country was intentionally handed over to extremists to serve as a base of militancy to destabilize and destroy targets of Western interest around the word.
The men McCain was defending were Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants, terrorists linked directly with Al Qaeda according to West Point reports (.pdf), and listed to this day by the US State Department, the UK Home Office (.pdf), and the UN as a "foreign terrorist organization." McCain was not only rhetorically supporting listed terrorists, but calling for material support including weapons, funds, training, and air support in direct violation of USC § 2339A & 2339B, "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations."
These same terrorists are now not only the defacto rulers of much of Libya, but are leading death squads in Syria and arming militants in Mali, an exponential expansion made possible by a non-partisan effort including Republicans and Democrats, as well as Bush-era Neo-Conservatives who concurrently lead both anti-Islam propaganda while leading calls to arm the most radical sectarian extremist groups, including groups directly affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Syria is Next
Not only has US policy been exposed as not "promoting democracy" but purposefully spreading destabilization, violence, and terrorism, but the exact same militants behind the death of the US' own ambassador are literally leading US efforts to visit the same violence, destabilization, and chaos upon Syria.
Reuters, in their article, "Libyan fighters join Syrian revolt," reported, that Mahdi al-Harati, "a powerful militia chief from Libya's western mountains," who is actually a militant of the US, British, and UN listed terrorist organization Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), "now leads a unit in Syria, made up mainly of Syrians but also including some foreign fighters, including 20 senior members of his own Libyan rebel unit." Reuters would go on to explain, "the Libyans aiding the Syrian rebels include specialists in communications, logistics, humanitarian issues and heavy weapons," and that they "operate training bases, teaching fitness and battlefield tactics."
Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as "foreign invasion."
Reuters concedes that the ongoing battle has nothing to do with democracy, but instead is purely a sectarian campaign aimed at "pushing out" Syria's minorities, perceived to be "oppressing" "Sunni Muslims."
Reuters' propaganda piece is rounded off with a Libyan terrorist allegedly threatening that "the militancy would spread across the region as long as the West does not do more to hasten the downfall of Assad," a talking point plucked straight from the halls of America's corporate-financier funded think-tanks. In fact, just such a think-tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently published a statement signed by Bush-era Neo-Conservatives stating:
Russia, China, Iran, and Others Oppose Terrorism in Syria for a Reason
With Libya's "democratic progress" exposed as only tenuously covering up NATO's creation of a nation-wide safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists to subsequently be deployed against the West's political enemies across he Arab World and beyond, it will be even more difficult, if not impossible to continue promoting this same "change" in Syria. Libya, through direct action of NATO, has been overrun by terrorists. Syria's government is desperately trying to prevent its people from being likewise overrun.
And even as the US buries its own ambassador, killed by terror brigades it itself armed and thrust into power through covert and direct military intervention, in a nation now wrecked by sectarian and tribal infighting, it insists on replicating its "success" in Syria.
Russia, China, Iran, and a growing number of nations have been opposing this campaign of supranational terrorism - with the death of Ambassador Stevens laying bare the true nature of America's proxy "freedom fighters," the list of global opposition will only grow, leaving only the most shameless and deeply invested to defend America's invasive and bloody foreign policy.
by Tony Cartalucci
Update: The picture below of John McCain in Benghazi, during the violent military subversion of Libya in 2011, includes the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right, wearing a blue tie. Stevens has now become a victim of the very terrorists he played a role in creating. The caption below has been edited to reflect this information.
Editor's Note: With Russia openly accusing the West of using Al Qaeda as their direct, militant proxies in Syria and beyond, this latest attempt to purposefully provoke and incite Muslims across the Arab World is an attempt by the West to reestablish the perception that the US and Israel are at war with sectarian extremists, not partnered with them. The film allegedly at the center of the violence, most likely came from the Neo-Con "Clarion Fund" or a project of similar origin.
September 12, 2012 - "I have met with these brave fighters, and they are not Al-Qaeda. To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation. We should help them do it." - Senator John McCain in Benghazi, Libya April 22, 2011.
....
McCain's "Libyan patriots" have now murdered US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens in the very city McCain spoke these words. An assault on the American consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the epicenter of not only last year's violent subversion and destruction of sovereign Libya, but a decade's old epicenter of global terrorism, left Ambassador Stevens dead along with reportedly three others.
The violence, Western media claims, stems from an anti-Islamic film produced in the US. In reality, the coordinated nature of the attacks on both the US Embassy in Libya, as well as its embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, are most likely using the Neo-Conservative Clarion Fund-esque propaganda film as a false pretense for violence long-planned. The Clarion Fund regularly produces anti-Muslim propaganda, like "Iranium," specifically to maintain a strategy of tension using fear and anger to drive a wedge between Western civilization and Islam to promote perpetual global wars of profit.
NATO Knowingly Handed Libya to Al Qaeda
Indeed, the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) noted that Benghazi and the neighboring city of Darnah served a disproportionately high role in supplying foreign fighters to wage terror against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan - foot soldiers brought in to fuel a destructive and divisive sectarian war that undermined a united Sunni-Shi'ia resistance to Western troops who had invaded.
....
The men McCain was defending were Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants, terrorists linked directly with Al Qaeda according to West Point reports (.pdf), and listed to this day by the US State Department, the UK Home Office (.pdf), and the UN as a "foreign terrorist organization." McCain was not only rhetorically supporting listed terrorists, but calling for material support including weapons, funds, training, and air support in direct violation of USC § 2339A & 2339B, "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations."
These same terrorists are now not only the defacto rulers of much of Libya, but are leading death squads in Syria and arming militants in Mali, an exponential expansion made possible by a non-partisan effort including Republicans and Democrats, as well as Bush-era Neo-Conservatives who concurrently lead both anti-Islam propaganda while leading calls to arm the most radical sectarian extremist groups, including groups directly affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Syria is Next
Not only has US policy been exposed as not "promoting democracy" but purposefully spreading destabilization, violence, and terrorism, but the exact same militants behind the death of the US' own ambassador are literally leading US efforts to visit the same violence, destabilization, and chaos upon Syria.
Reuters, in their article, "Libyan fighters join Syrian revolt," reported, that Mahdi al-Harati, "a powerful militia chief from Libya's western mountains," who is actually a militant of the US, British, and UN listed terrorist organization Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), "now leads a unit in Syria, made up mainly of Syrians but also including some foreign fighters, including 20 senior members of his own Libyan rebel unit." Reuters would go on to explain, "the Libyans aiding the Syrian rebels include specialists in communications, logistics, humanitarian issues and heavy weapons," and that they "operate training bases, teaching fitness and battlefield tactics."
....
Reuters concedes that the ongoing battle has nothing to do with democracy, but instead is purely a sectarian campaign aimed at "pushing out" Syria's minorities, perceived to be "oppressing" "Sunni Muslims."
Reuters' propaganda piece is rounded off with a Libyan terrorist allegedly threatening that "the militancy would spread across the region as long as the West does not do more to hasten the downfall of Assad," a talking point plucked straight from the halls of America's corporate-financier funded think-tanks. In fact, just such a think-tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently published a statement signed by Bush-era Neo-Conservatives stating:
"America’s national security interests are intertwined with the fate of the Syrian people and the wider region. Indeed, Syria’s escalating conflict now threatens to directly affect the country’s neighbors, including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel, and could provide an opening for terrorist groups like al Qaeda to exploit."Along with "War on Terror" proponent John McCain, Al Qaeda's LIFG and America's Neo-Con establishment are now operating in tandem, as well as in direct contradiction to a decade of "War on Terror" propaganda. It should be remembered that those who signed this statement, including Elliott Abrams, Max Boot, Ellen Bork, William Kristol, Paul Bremer, Paula Dobriansk, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Clifford D. May, Stephen Rademaker, Michael Weiss, Radwan Ziadeh, were among the very engineers of the fraudulent "War on Terror" that McCain himself is such a fervent supporter of. Radwan Ziadeh, last on the list, is in fact a "Syrian National Council" member - one of several proxies the US State Department is hoping to slip into power in Syria.
Russia, China, Iran, and Others Oppose Terrorism in Syria for a Reason
With Libya's "democratic progress" exposed as only tenuously covering up NATO's creation of a nation-wide safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists to subsequently be deployed against the West's political enemies across he Arab World and beyond, it will be even more difficult, if not impossible to continue promoting this same "change" in Syria. Libya, through direct action of NATO, has been overrun by terrorists. Syria's government is desperately trying to prevent its people from being likewise overrun.
And even as the US buries its own ambassador, killed by terror brigades it itself armed and thrust into power through covert and direct military intervention, in a nation now wrecked by sectarian and tribal infighting, it insists on replicating its "success" in Syria.
Russia, China, Iran, and a growing number of nations have been opposing this campaign of supranational terrorism - with the death of Ambassador Stevens laying bare the true nature of America's proxy "freedom fighters," the list of global opposition will only grow, leaving only the most shameless and deeply invested to defend America's invasive and bloody foreign policy.
Is The War On Terror Over?
Can Obama Safely Embrace Islamists? -- Michael Hirsh, National JournalIn an article in the current National Journal called "The Post Al Qaida Era," I write that the Obama administration is taking a new view of Islamist radicalism. The president realizes he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively "moderate" Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. (The Muslim Brotherhood officially renounced violence decades ago, leading then-dissident radicals such as Ayman al-Zawahiri to join al Qaida.)
Read more ....
Update: 'The War on Terror Is Over' -- Daniel Halper, Weekly Standard
My Comment: So the war on terror is over .... hmmmm .... I learn something new everyday.
Pakistan Warns US Over Airspace
US then promptly murders 8 Pakistanis in drone attack.
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand May 6, 2011 - Much to Wired writer Spencer Ackerman's credit, amidst the first several paragraphs of his article, "First Drone Strikes Since Bin Laden Raid Hit Pakistan, Yemen," it is noted that after Pakistan's warnings and demands that the US cease and desist from violating its airspace, the US's subsequent drone attacks made the Pakistanis "look either complicit — and, hence, hypocritical — or incompetent." While the article continues by covering the official narrative citing the Soros-funded New American Foundation and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' propagandist mouthpiece "Long War Journal," this initial moment of clarity strikes at the very center of America's use of drone attacks in Pakistan.
The global corporate-financiers that fund organizations like the New American Foundation and the FDD are quite clear in regards to their designs regarding Pakistan, and indeed all sovereign nations on earth outside their sphere of military and economic hegemony. Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces specifically calling for carving off Pakistan's Baluchistan province, not as part of a strategy to win the "War on Terror," but as a means to thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing.
In "Free Baluchistan," he explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."
In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis," Harrison begins by stating, "China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then repeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."
Viewing America's presence in Central and South Asia through this prism of reality, we see quite clearly the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony plus a containment policy toward China. This is not merely a speculative conclusion, rather it is the stated goal contained within the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute's report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report, China's efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea are examined as are means to maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western policy wonks and paper-pushers fail to entice China into participating in the "international system" as "responsible stakeholders," an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.
A map taken from SSI's report on China's "String of Pearls." The blue
arrow and the nations it passes represents China's strategic interests.
It also represents a region now mired in US-backed chaos.
Looking at events today, it appears that enticement has failed, and that the worst case scenarios discussed within the report have not only been put into play, but have thus far proven ineffective. This latest farcical hoax - finding "Osama Bin Laden" in the heart of Pakistan's intelligence and military community of Abbottabad - is clearly a means to extort cooperation and concessions from Islamabad. In fact, such cooperation and concessions are already being compiled into a wish-list by corporate and foundation funded think-tanks like the Brookings Institution.
As Wired's Spencer Ackerman astutely noted, renewed drone attacks against Pakistan undermine the government's legitimacy and the military's competency to protect the nation. The ire of Pakistan's population in conjunction with calls to support an armed insurgency in Pakistan's Baluchistan region creates a potent mix of destabilization that threatens not only the government and the military, but stakeholders throughout the region who will be faced with a nuclear-armed state mired in unpredictable chaos. If there is any doubt over the resolve of American policy wonks to create such chaos, one needs only to read Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?" report.
China has already rushed to Pakistan's defense calling for support from the international community for Pakistan. China also stated that, "China also suffers from terrorism. Some terrorist forces are engaged in a great many violent, terrorist activities for the purpose of splitting China, and seriously threaten China’s national security, and regional peace and security."
It is quite clear who China is referring to, as just weeks earlier an April 2011 Reuters report, "China crackdown driven by fears of a broad conspiracy," stated that "Chinese leaders believe domestic foes, their foreign backers and Western governments are scheming to undermine and ultimately topple the Communist Party. Recent speeches and articles from security officials echo with warnings of subversive plots backed by Western "anti-China" forces."
While mewing propagandists like those of FDD's "Long War Journal" continue to insist this conflict is about bearded goat-herders threatening our freedoms and way of life, even as magazines like Foreign Policy celebrate America's disregard for all we stand for in pursuit of "national security," those who take the time to look behind the curtain see a true terror at work. It is a terror based not in a cave in Pakistan's frontier, but upon Wall Street, their enablers in Washington, and the myriad of think-tanks that peddle their agenda. In turn, it is these facilitators, not bearded cavemen, that ceaselessly and systematically destroy America by bleeding it dry through endless wars, bankrupting it through larcenist Ponzi-schemes, and squandering the good will, awe, and inspiration the United States once lent the world.
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand May 6, 2011 - Much to Wired writer Spencer Ackerman's credit, amidst the first several paragraphs of his article, "First Drone Strikes Since Bin Laden Raid Hit Pakistan, Yemen," it is noted that after Pakistan's warnings and demands that the US cease and desist from violating its airspace, the US's subsequent drone attacks made the Pakistanis "look either complicit — and, hence, hypocritical — or incompetent." While the article continues by covering the official narrative citing the Soros-funded New American Foundation and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' propagandist mouthpiece "Long War Journal," this initial moment of clarity strikes at the very center of America's use of drone attacks in Pakistan.
In "Free Baluchistan," he explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."
In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis," Harrison begins by stating, "China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then repeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."
Viewing America's presence in Central and South Asia through this prism of reality, we see quite clearly the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony plus a containment policy toward China. This is not merely a speculative conclusion, rather it is the stated goal contained within the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute's report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report, China's efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea are examined as are means to maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western policy wonks and paper-pushers fail to entice China into participating in the "international system" as "responsible stakeholders," an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.
A map taken from SSI's report on China's "String of Pearls." The bluearrow and the nations it passes represents China's strategic interests.
It also represents a region now mired in US-backed chaos.
Looking at events today, it appears that enticement has failed, and that the worst case scenarios discussed within the report have not only been put into play, but have thus far proven ineffective. This latest farcical hoax - finding "Osama Bin Laden" in the heart of Pakistan's intelligence and military community of Abbottabad - is clearly a means to extort cooperation and concessions from Islamabad. In fact, such cooperation and concessions are already being compiled into a wish-list by corporate and foundation funded think-tanks like the Brookings Institution.
As Wired's Spencer Ackerman astutely noted, renewed drone attacks against Pakistan undermine the government's legitimacy and the military's competency to protect the nation. The ire of Pakistan's population in conjunction with calls to support an armed insurgency in Pakistan's Baluchistan region creates a potent mix of destabilization that threatens not only the government and the military, but stakeholders throughout the region who will be faced with a nuclear-armed state mired in unpredictable chaos. If there is any doubt over the resolve of American policy wonks to create such chaos, one needs only to read Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?" report.
China has already rushed to Pakistan's defense calling for support from the international community for Pakistan. China also stated that, "China also suffers from terrorism. Some terrorist forces are engaged in a great many violent, terrorist activities for the purpose of splitting China, and seriously threaten China’s national security, and regional peace and security."
It is quite clear who China is referring to, as just weeks earlier an April 2011 Reuters report, "China crackdown driven by fears of a broad conspiracy," stated that "Chinese leaders believe domestic foes, their foreign backers and Western governments are scheming to undermine and ultimately topple the Communist Party. Recent speeches and articles from security officials echo with warnings of subversive plots backed by Western "anti-China" forces."
While mewing propagandists like those of FDD's "Long War Journal" continue to insist this conflict is about bearded goat-herders threatening our freedoms and way of life, even as magazines like Foreign Policy celebrate America's disregard for all we stand for in pursuit of "national security," those who take the time to look behind the curtain see a true terror at work. It is a terror based not in a cave in Pakistan's frontier, but upon Wall Street, their enablers in Washington, and the myriad of think-tanks that peddle their agenda. In turn, it is these facilitators, not bearded cavemen, that ceaselessly and systematically destroy America by bleeding it dry through endless wars, bankrupting it through larcenist Ponzi-schemes, and squandering the good will, awe, and inspiration the United States once lent the world.
Obama’s War On Terror May Resemble Bush’s In Some Areas
Leon F. Panetta opened a loophole in the Obama administration’s interrogation restrictions while testifying before a Senate panel this month. Michael Temchine for The New York TimesFrom The New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.
In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.
And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”
Read more ....
My Comment: It is still too early to know what will be President Obama's policies on the War Against Terrorism. On the one hand they do want to have a distinct policy that is opposite from President Bush, on the other hand President bush's policy was succesful in preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
I expect a middle ground will be found on what they to do .... but make no mistake about it .... after a few months when their policies have become operational .... they will own this war on terror, and they will be responsible if things go wrong.
Obama Redefines War On Terror
Change of command: President Obama met members of the US Armed Forces on a visit to the Pentagon Wednesday. Obama is shifting the focus of the war on terror to Afghanistan. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)From Christian Science Monitor:
The president focuses on Al Qaeda and on repairing America’s image in the Muslim world.
President Obama’s executive orders closing the Guantánamo detention facility and outlawing torture were interpreted in some circles as closing the door on the Bush administration’s global war on terror.
But Mr. Obama – who used the word “war” in his inaugural address to describe the fight with Islamic extremists who would do America harm – is not so much ending the war on terror as he is redefining it and narrowing its focus.
The president is signaling a desire to home in on the Al Qaeda organization and its leadership, as well as on those Taliban leaders who have created a haven in Afghanistan and Pakistan from which to plot against US interests, say counterterrorism experts.
At the same time, Obama aims to cleave Muslim populations from extremist forces by emphasizing his and America’s common interests with the Muslim people, and by acting fast on issues that matter to them.
Read more ....
My Comment: War on terror????? .... Never existed. Jihad ... what is that? But Al Qaeda, the Taliban .... now that we can chew up.
Sigh .... I heard all of this in the nineties. Look at the man or men who cause terror .... but ignore the philosophical and religious context behind it.
This redefinition and playing with language will only serve to muddle and distort the fight against militant Islam.
U.K. Foreign Minister Miliband Says 'War On Terror' Was Wrong
Photo: Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Thursday the notion of a "war on terror" was "misleading and mistaken", in an outspoken critique of a key policy of outgoing US President George W. Bush. (AFP/File/Leon Neal)From Yahoo News/AFP:
LONDON (AFP) – Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Thursday the notion of a "war on terror" was "misleading and mistaken", in an outspoken critique of a key policy of outgoing US President George W. Bush.
Writing in the Guardian, Miliband said the phrase gave the idea of a unified enemy where none existed, and also encouraged a primarily military response to problems that top generals admitted the West could not "kill its way out of".
Read more ....
Bush's $1 Trillion War on Terrorism: Even Costlier Than Expected
U.S. soldiers arrive at the Kandahar Air Field in southern Afghanistan in MarchJohn Moore / Getty
From Time Magazine:
The news that President Bush's war on terrorism soon will have cost the U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion — and counting — is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports — none by the Bush Administration — suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90% of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terrorism looks set to surpass the costs the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.
The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistan or Iraq is about $775,000 — three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration's cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars.
Read more ....
My Comment: The "War on Terror" is going to be with us for a very long time, but the cost for not fighting it will be higher.
War On Terror's Hidden Front
Staff Sgt. Cynthia Ramirez sums up the mission of AFRICOM, the Pentagon's newest command: 'Hearts and minds. And we're showing the bad guys we can go anywhere.' (Tribune photo by E. Jason Wambsgans / January 13, 2008)From Chicago Tribune:
So what, then, will the long war against Islamic extremism look like—not next year, but a decade or two down the road? One answer lies next to the airport in Djibouti city, the dilapidated capital of Djibouti and host to the only U.S. military base in Africa.
Camp Lemonier, rented from the Djibouti government for $30 million a year, has all the hallmarks of an overseas U.S. military post at the dawn of the 21st Century: 20-foot-high blast walls; Marines in watchtowers; ranks of locomotive-size generators that drown the area in an industrial hum day and night; and a contractor-run Green Bean Coffee Hut that sells $2.75 Latte Frappes.
Read more ....
My Comment: This is cheaper than fighting a high kinetic war.
The Psychology Of "The War On Terror" And Other Terms For Counterterrorism
Vladimir Dmitriev/iStockPhotoFrom Scientific American:
How we characterize an issue affects how we think about it. Replacing the "war on terror" metaphor with other ways of framing counterterrorism might help us curtail the violence more effectively
* Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has used a war metaphor to define counterterrorism strategy. Such a description may simplify a complex reality, making it more mentally manageable, but it may also oversimplify and distort reality.
* Metaphors can guide national decision making. The wars that began in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 clearly demonstrate that the concept of a war to combat a method of violence used by nonstate agents is more than rhetoric.
* Viewing counterterrorism through the lens of law enforcement may yield more tightly focused tactics that are less costly than war and less likely to provoke resentment and backlash.
* Relating counterterrorism to disease containment or prejudice reduction shifts the focus to the psychological underpinnings of terrorism and, in doing so, may suggest successful long-term strategies that chip away at the motivations of terrorists.
Read more ....
My Comment: The terrorists .... from Bin Laden on down .... they use their language very clearly. Islam is at war with the West. To psychoanalyze their speeches is ridiculous .... their intent and their following (which is in the millions) are very clear.