11/21 Why ' START' Now?: "Strategic Concept" NATO 2020:Pledges to expand global "fight against terrorism"

Digest: ITS ALL ABOUT GLOBAL POLITICAL POWER
WHY. GEOPOLITICAL URGENCY FOR 'NEW START': RUSSIA AND CHINA, ARE THE MOST FORMIDABLE THREATS TO U.S. GLOBAL SUPREMACY WHICH DEPENDS INCREASINGLY ON MILITARY / NUCLEAR POWER, AS ITS POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWER ERODE. U.S. NEEDS TO DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN AS THEY, SEPARATELY AND TOGETHER, THEIR 'INFLUENCE' EXPANDS INTO CRUCIAL REGIONS OF THE WORLD DOMINATED BY THE US. COOPTING RUSSIA INTO A NEW US/ NATO ALLIANCE IS A NECESSARY, DESPERATE MOVE IN PURSUING ITS BIPARTISAN NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA FOR FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE

11/20/09 Dealing With Long-Range Missile Threats: It's All About Russia
The nearly 2,000 nuclear warheads on Russian ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles constitute the sole near-term existential threat to the United States. General Kevin Chilton, U.S. Strategic Forces Commander, in Senate testimony June 16: “Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities, and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and costly.” http://www.armscontrol.org/threats

NB: not about reducing number of nukes, but Russia's offensive & defensive capability
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON MEASURES FOR THE FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf April 8, 2010

Obama sign nuclear treaty with Russia in Prague 8 Apr 2010: New strategic arms reduction treaty (Start) signed by US president and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, will shrink each nation's arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 over seven years – about two-thirds of the 2,200 currently permitted

Cost and Goals at Center of Arms Control Treaty Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/us/politics/20nuke.html?ref=science
The standoff this week over ratification of a new Arms Control Treaty centers on a simple phrase: nuclear modernization. Those two words conceal a little known, enormously ambitious plan to do nothing less than rebuild the nation’s atomic complex for the 21st century. At stake in the stalled negotiations between the White House and Senate Republicans is not only how much money to spend on the project but, more philosophically, what purpose should be served by building new complexes that can pump out more nuclear arms than ever.In seeking Senate support for the so-called New Start treaty with Russia, the White House agreed to spend $85 billion over the next decade upgrading the nuclear weapons system...the Obama administration would like to be able to produce up to 80 warheads a year — far more than are needed to replace the warheads destroyed annually by testingThe deal-making puts President Obama in the paradoxical position of investing vast sums in nuclear weapons even as he promises to put the world on a path to eliminating them...arms controllers say it is largely unnecessary to rebuild the nation’s atomic complex, especially for a president who has pledged himself to a world free of nuclear arms and set the negotiation of a new arms treaty with Russia as one of his main foreign policy objectives. Whether or not the New Start treaty passes, it seems likely that some modernization of the nuclear weapons complex will move forward. Whatever its budget...

ONWARD FROM "AFPAK": PROMISES & THREATS FOR INCREASED NATO ROLE IN U.S. WORLD WAR AGENDA
"Strategic Concept: NATO 2020: Assured Security: Dynamic Engagement"
NATO's Milestone Lisbon Summit
http://www.cfr.org/publication/23419/natos_milestone_lisbon_summit.html?...
2010 Russia part of NATO meeting ... 1948 - 1949 NATO was set up to counter Soviet expansionism
The NATO summit is due to adopt a plan for the ISAF to stay in Afghanistan through 2014...the announcement of a new timeline for withdrawing forces from Afghanistan will be a boon to many European leaders, who are facing voters opposed to their country's continued presence there...the 2014 timeline will help keep Afghanistan from "hijacking" this summit. Nevertheless, NATO countries will still have to decide what they would really be willing to do, militarily, in the era "after Afghanistan." No real decisions can be made now, even though NATO's new Strategic Concept, due to be made public, will make some generalized statements about its future role...to what extent will allies be willing, in a NATO framework or even outside a NATO framework, to help the United States do its primary business, which is no longer in Europe, but in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. That is why the United States is looking to NATO more in terms of who will be engaged with us in Afghanistan and who will be more engaged with us if there are other situations outside of Europe...
One of the most important things that will happen, it appears, is for NATO to start putting into place the last piece of the great jigsaw puzzle created by [former] president George H.W. Bush in 1989, when he talked about how to create a Europe whole, free, and at peace. The one piece that had been missing was an effective relationship between NATO and Russia, and for Russia to play a positive role in the future of European security. The fact that Medvedev is coming is indicative of that. How much of that is internal politics, Medvedev versus Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, one can't tell, but it does look as though the Russians have made a calculation that it is worth it to Russia to be more engaged with NATO and more of a participant in the NATO efforts to redefine European security...emblematic of that will be the extent to which the Russians are prepared to sign on to the new U.S.-NATO methodology of doing ballistic missile defense, designed, of course, primarily against the possibility of Iranian missiles, but where Russia would have its own security enhanced against threats from the south and the east...

Obama asks Congress for 80 billion to modernize nuclear weapons complex
http://world.globaltimes.cn/americas/2010-05/531772.html
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the funding was needed to " rebuild and sustain America's aging nuclear stockpile." The proposal is likely to be embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, as Senate Republicans have said more resources have to be committed to modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, so as to support a smaller nuclear arsenal under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), reached by the Obama administration and the Russian government in April and sent to Congress for ratification earlier in the day.

peace laureate's "nonproliferation agenda" nuclear poker game: Clinton brands it "leading through civilian power"
Obama offers extra $4.1 billion for nuke arsenal, source says
11/13/10 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40159754/ns/politics
In a bid to win approval of a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia... the Obama administration is offering to add billions of dollars in funding for the U.S. nuclear arsenal...The additional money comes on top of an additional $10 billion the administration had already agreed to over 10 years....President Obama was attending a Pacific Rim summit, his national security adviser, Tom Donilon...told reporters Obama was to meet Sunday with Russian President Medvedev on the summit margins... "It's important on the merits in terms of the arms control aspects of the treaty," the adviser said. "It's important for U.S. leadership in the world on the nonproliferation agenda. And it's important for the U.S.-Russia relationship."

nato, another word for u.s.a still with plenty left to lose...in world domination... establishes another permanent losing occupation like Iraq
NATO Sees Long-Term Role After Afghan Combat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/world/europe/21nato.html?ref=world
NATO and American officials also warned that if Afghanistan had not made sufficient progress in managing its own security, 2014 was not a hard and fast deadline for the end of combat operations... calling civilian deaths “an entirely legitimate issue on the part of President Karzai,” Mr. Obama said “he’s got to understand I’ve got a bunch of young men and women in a foreign country being shot at” and “need to protect themselves.”...Mr. Obama also confirmed the American military would remain in some form [after 2014].... At a closed-door meeting here, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, set out his strategy for the transition, confirming the kind of operations Mr. Karzai criticized, including drone missile strikes and nighttime raids, would continue aggressively...
In a separate NATO-Russia summit meeting here that both sides called historic, President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia agreed to explore cooperation with the alliance on a missile-defense system that would protect all of Europe...While he insisted Russia would not participate in anything less that “a full-fledged strategic partnership...NATO and Moscow also signed agreements to expand the alliance’s supply routes to Afghanistan through Russia, to set up a new training program in Russia for counternarcotics agents from Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries, on a program to train Afghan helicopter crews, and to buy more Russian helicopters for Afghan forces. When asked about the 2014 goal for Afghanistan, Mr. Medvedev spoke of Moscow’s own experiences there. “It’s difficult for me to tell if that is realistic...The current situation is far from quiet. I have some doubts.”

The US START Treaty: What Does "Arms Control" Really Mean?
by Darwin BondGraham, http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/bg200510.html
...The basic position of the Obama administration is that it seeks strict nonproliferation measures to prevent non-nuclear nations from obtaining nuclear arms capabilities.... not very different from past administrations... At the same time the administration is making an unprecedented fiscal commitment to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while keeping the military's "nuclear posture" virtually the same as throughout the Cold War. In spite of its title and much of the press it has gotten, the recently penned New START treaty in no way puts restrictive "controls" on U.S. nuclear armaments...In fact the administration is delivering, a minimum $80 billion dollar reconstruction funding package for [modernizing] the nuclear weapons complex, and another $100 billion investment package in a new generation of nuclear subs, missiles, and bombers...
Russia has had major concerns with U.S. plans to build a "missile defense" system for many years. Most of the world understands this system to be part of a larger offensive U.S. military stance, not a "defense." START is one attempt to smooth things over on this front, while also formalizing small cuts in nuclear arsenals that both states were likely to make with or without the treaty. "Missile defense" is moving ahead full speed. Defense Secretary Gates has said, "the reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad. Nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the United States and our allies by improving and deploying missile defense systems." The military's head of missile defense, Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, said, in support of the treaty, "relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the new START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program."2
During a briefing on Nuclear Posture Review -- the administration's stated nuclear doctrines drafted parallel to the New START treaty -- General James Cartwright admitted "There are no constraints in this treaty associated with our missile defenses or our prompt global strike capabilities, read conventional." Prompt global strike refers to a new class of weapons, ICBMs tipped with conventional, non-nuclear warheads. This system is intended to provide U.S. leadership with the ability to strike any point on the planet within an hour. Like "missile defense," prompt global strike has elicited a lot of concern from the Russians (to say nothing of other targeted nations). Here again the New START treaty has functioned to negotiate a resolution that will allow the U.S. to develop and deploy this new, highly asymmetrical, strategic weapon under terms that do not miff the Russians too much. In other words, it's not really about nuclear weapons, up or down. It's about finding a way to roll out a new class of extremely destructive and destabilizing conventional weapons.
A related function of the treaty is to provide both states with more fungible accounting rules with respect to nuclear missile warheads and bombs. New START only barely reduces a fraction of the hugely disproportionate nuclear arms of each state. It does this through fuzzy accounting methods, ones that do not address warheads and bombs in storage, or tactical weapons. Worst of all the treaty counts nuclear capable bomber jets, each of which can hold many nuclear weapons, as single warheads...
"Modernization" of the stockpile is already being carried out under what are called "life-extension programs." Big dollar amounts will soon flow into the U.S. nuclear weapons labs to further tinker with weapons designs, START treaty or not. The treaty's possible ratification by the Senate is only expected to boost these funding amounts. It has already emboldened proponents in the weapons labs, Congress, and military who would like to see the physics packages of warheads and bombs opened up entirely under attempts at component replacement.
Modernization of the nuclear weapons complex is seen as a necessary step in tandem modernization of the weapons themselves. Prior to the New START treaty's handover to the Senate, the Obama administration had already proposed a $5 billion down payment to the National Nuclear Security Administration over the next five years. Among other things, these funds will subsidize the rapidly growing costs of planning and building a uranium enrichment facility at the Y-12 site in Tennessee and a plutonium "pit" manufacturing center at Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Succeeding Where Bush Failed? Under the George W. Bush administration there were two names for NNSA's costly infrastructure aspirations. At first the federal agency called its plan to rebuild the nation's nuclear infrastructure "Complex 2030." Then it was "Complex Transformation." The latter title was adopted and its environmental impact statements are officially guiding construction and operations at the nation's nuclear labs and facilities today. Key components related to the administration's transformation plan were nixed by Congress, however, including their centerpiece proposal, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Now the language is once again shifting from "Complex Transformation" to "Modernization," a term being applied to both the complex and the weapons it builds, and far larger sums of money are being offered up than during the Bush era... for a president who pledged himself to a vision of a nuclear-free world, the question is not whether a new weapons complex (the operational life-span of which will be generations into the future) will be built, but how quickly funds will be ponied up for it, and at what levels....keep in mind Obama has already pledged a 13 percent increase over the FY2010 budget, from $6.4 to 7 billion, with a major ramping up of spending again in 2014, by hundreds of millions, finally culminating at $9 billion by 2018. 6 ... yet the treaty has been promoted as an "arms control" agreement, and praised by some observers as consistent with the President's famous April, 2009 Prague speech in which he affirmed a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. If anyone had any doubts about what New START accomplishes with respect to cementing the place of nuclear weapons in this world, the administration's own boosters have made it clear that the treaty is in fact a very pro-nuclear law. Former Defense Secretary William Perry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "the President's FY11 budget submission proposes substantial increases to the nuclear weapons program for [improvement of the nuclear weapons complex]. . . . The administration has been consistent in its statements and proposals on this point, all of which support upgrade and improvement of the nuclear weapons complex." Darwin BondGraham is a board member of the Los Alamos Study Group disarmament, energy, and economic development organization in Albuquerque, N.M.

How many Poles does it take to pass New START?
11/18/10, Josh Rogin, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/
As the White House scrambles to secure enough GOP Senate votes to ratify the New START treaty with Russia, there's a lot of overt political grandstanding -- and a lot of horse trading going on behind the scenes. In a long floor speech on Wednesday Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) declared, "I am deeply concerned the New START treaty may once again undermine the confidence of our friends and allies in Central and Eastern Europe." Then, quietly, he offered his support to the Obama administration in exchange for waiving visa requirements for Polish citizens. Various GOP senators have submitted demands in exchange for their support of the treaty, but usually related to concerns over the treaty itself. For example, the administration has offered Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) over $84 billion for nuclear modernization, under the premise that shoring up the safety of the stockpile is needed to ensure national security.

Fascist state hallmark: merger of civilian/soft & military/hard power - deepening war on 'civilian'/working class fo fund US global juggernaut
combining military, international affairs budgets
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the State Department’s first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.
View the consultation draft of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (pdf)
By Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes, November 18, 2010
http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-considering-combining-military-internati...
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Obama administration is considering creating a unified national security budget that would combine elements of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development with the Pentagon, according to a draft copy of a long-awaited foreign policy strategy review shared with Congress this week.

Draft QDDR: Leading through Civilian Power
[http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/14727/state-department-diplomacy-and-development-review.pdf
"To advance American interests and values and to lead other nations in solving shared problems in the 21st century, we must rely on our diplomats and development experts as the first face of American power. We must lead through civilian power,"

Planning and Budgeting with the Department of Defense to Meet National Security Requirements
Challenge •“[T]he United States’ interagency tool kit is still a hodgepodge of jury-rigged arrangements constrained by a dated and complex patchwork of authorities, persistent shortfalls in resources, and unwieldy processes.” –Secretary of Defense Robert Gates •Today’s most pressing challenges demand a comprehensive response that integrates civilian and military power and allows us to deploy these tools in a coordinated and flexible way
QDDR Response •Apply joint planning and budgeting processes developed in Iraq and Afghanistan to other complex situations as we examine the creation of a unified National Security Budget
•Establish an Overseas Contingency Operations [digest: Global War on Terror/GWOT] title in State/USAID’s annual budget to reflect extraordinary civilian and whole of government costs....

TANKS, DRONES, GUNS, TERROR WILL NOT STOP THE VICTORY OF JUST RESISTANCE
Afghan resistance statement
The Americans can no longer conceal their defeat in the Kandahar Operations
http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=72016&s2=20
November 20, 2010 - The White House has determined July 2011 as the deadline to begin withdrawing their defeated invader forces from Afghanistan. It is therefore necessary for them to justify this withdrawal in front of their civilians and the world at large by achieving some meaningful or tangible gain in Afghanistan.To this end they have stationed over 150,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan along with all the military technology they can muster. The Americans have chosen Kandahar as their battleground both for its sentimental and strategic importance.
...For the past nine months the Americans have been attempting their utmost to achieve some sort of military or political gain in Afghanistan. They employed all the propaganda tools at their disposal to turn the people away from the Mujahideen. However, failing to win the support of the people, the invaders resorted to the indiscriminate carpet bombings of the people’s lands and the mass murders of the innocent civilians. All this has caused the displacement of thousands of families from their lands and villages. However, despite all their trickeries and force, the battle for Kandahar has settled steadily in the Mujahideen’s favour. The Mujahideen were, from the start of these operations, to carry out precise Commando-led operations against the nerve centres of the foreign forces and their puppet partners, thus seizing the initiative from the foreign occupiers... Obama’s approval ratings have sunk to 46% while the myth of America’s military superiority globally has been shattered. The NATO meeting in Portugal will also address how the foreigners can prevent the escalating defeat and death toll in Afghanistan...
In summary it has become clear that after nine years of occupation, the invaders are doomed towards the same fate as those that tread this path before them. Their troop surges, their new strategies, their new generals, their new negotiations, and their new propagandas have been of no avail.

the resistance will defeat occupying barbarians' winning hearts & minda
Pentagon Blows up Thousands of Homes in Afghanistan
By Brian Becker, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26869.htm
Borrowing a page from its infamous “pacification” effort in South Vietnam, peasant villages napalmed and burned to the ground to “save them from the communists,” the Obama-ordered surge in Afghanistan has been secretly blowing up thousands of homes and leveling portions of the Afghan countryside.“In Arghandab District, for instance, every one of the 40 homes in the village of Khosrow was flattened by a salvo of 25 missiles, according to the district governor, Shah Muhammed Ahmadi, who estimated that 120 to 130 of the mud houses had been demolished in his district,” reported the New York Times, Nov. 16, 2010.The Pentagon asserts they must destroy the homes because some may have explosive devices inside. The Pentagon’s murderous rampage and terror campaign 40 years ago against South Vietnamese villages, in areas considered sympathetic to the resistance forces, used the same kind of explanation... the New York Times in a throw back to Vietnam quotes the Arghandab District Governor, who is working with the occupation forces: “We had to destroy them to make them safe.”...part of a high-tech terror campaign against Afghan villages and people evident even by accounts of western media...New York Times Nov. 16 describes weapons as tools: “American troops are using an impressive array of tools not only to demolish homes, but also to eliminate tree lines where insurgents could hide, blow up outbuildings, flatten agricultural walls, and carve new “military roads”...One of the most fearsome tools is the Miclic, the M58 Mine-Clearing Line Charge, a chain of explosives tied to a rocket, which upon impact destroys everything in a swath 30 feet wide and 325 feet long. The Himars missile system, a pod of 13-foot rockets carrying 200-pound warheads, has also been used frequently for demolition work. Often, new military roads go right through farms and compounds..."

New U.S. Plan in Afghanistan: ‘Awe and Shock’
Spencer Ackerman, 11/19/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/new-u-s-plan-in-afghanistan-awe-...
Behold the U.S.’s new counterinsurgency tool in Afghanistan: the M1 Abrams tank, your ultimate in 30-year old precision firepower.
Increasingly distant are the days when Defense Secretary Robert Gates worried aloud about replicating the Soviet Union’s failed heavy footprint in Afghanistan. Under the command of General David Petraeus, the military’s leading advocate of counterinsurgency, an unconventional war is looking surprisingly conventional. NATO planes are dropping more bombs than at any time since the 2001 invasion. Special Forces have been operating on a tear since the summer, to the point where Afghanistan’s president is saying enough is enough. The coalition is using massive surface-to-surface missiles to clear the Taliban out of Kandahar...blowing up at least 174 booby-trapped homes around Kandahar since September. And now the tanks are rolling in. In an excellent piece by Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran, U.S. military officials brag they’ve "taken the gloves off" in Afghanistan...one military official bluntly tells Chandrasekaran, "the tanks bring awe, shock and firepower."...Chandrasekaran reports Petraeus feels his reputation as a counterinsurgency guru can overcome the optics of a heavily armored force rolling through Afghanistan’s south, reminiscent of the Soviet occupation... In a CNN interview April 2009 Gates cautioned "The Soviets were in there with 110,000, 120,000 troops. They didn’t care about civilian casualties. And they couldn’t win."...NATO has 130,000 troops in Afghanistan. The numbers of civilians killed in the war is at an all-time high, despite a U.S. strategy protecting Afghans from violence. And starting today in Lisbon, NATO will endorse a strategy to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014...

New Afghan policy review won't make recommendations on policy
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2000/11/09/new_afghan_policy_rev...
The White House has begun its next comprehensive review of the war in Afghanistan....But unlike the last administration Afghanistan policy review, which resulted in Obama's troop surge decision last March, this review team is being told not to make policy recommendations. That work will be left to the National Security Staff (the new name for the National Security Council) to deal with after the review.. But don't expect the White House to share the details of those discussions either, the official warned. "There's a good deal that we don't intend to make public."

imperialist 'in effect' elections & sovereignty
Afghan Candidates Disqualified by Panel
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/asia/22afghan.html?hp
The Independent Election Commission forwarded the names of 224 candidates to the Election Complaints Commission for investigation of voting irregularities, and those candidates had, in effect, already been disqualified... in addition to the 25 winning candidates formally disqualified. The 21 disqualified candidates included 19 initially been listed as winners, and 2 who received the second -highest number of votes and might, therefore, win in the final count. Many other candidates were in effect disqualified because votes were thrown out in the polling places where their showings had been strongest. In all the I.E.C. has invalidated 1.3 million votes, nearly a fourth of the total votes cast.

Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/03/119977.htm
Gordon Duguid Acting Deputy State Department Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Spokesman, Wa.D.C.

U.S. CHATS WITH NGOs
http://kabul.usembassy.gov/election_webchat1406.html
U.S. Embassy Kabul: Moderator: (5/14/2009) Please submit questions now. We will be starting shortly. Thanks (09:57) How will Civil Society protect their facilities and people during the elections? Will NGO's be involved in collecting ballots or only afghan military? U.S. Embassy Kabul The Afghan National Police will protect the voters and the election places such as polling sites during the elections. Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission is in charge of the transportation of ballots. Civil society can send observers to the election if the observers are accredited by the Independent Election Commission. The US is providing funds to support the work of the Afghan Independent Election Commission and the UN in these elections. The IEC will greatly expand its civil outreach efforts later this month and those will continue until voting day in August. IEC representatives will travel to each town to discuss the elections with the people and promote awareness of the electoral process...

Afghanistan Officials Cancel About 23 Percent of Parliamentary Votes
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Officials-Cancel-About-23-Percent-of...
Top officials of the Independent Election Commission, IEC, told reporters 5.6 million votes had been cast but they have thrown out 1.3 million of them for various reasons. The United States and other allies were skeptical about a fair and free election process even before the polls, and have yet to dub the poll a success. However, top U.S officials believe a new parliament will hold the key to success of the process aimed at strengthening Afghanistan's political system, currently rife with corruption, and seen to help influential warlords.Last year's presidential election, in which President Hamid Karzai won a new term in office, was marred by widespread fraud.
Audits Account for Tens of Millions Sent Through USAID to Afghan Election Board
"Everybody kept sending money" to the elections commission, said Peter Galbraith, former deputy chief of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. "Nobody put the brakes on. U.S. taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a fraudulent election." Galbraith, a deputy to the senior U.N. official in Afghanistan, was fired last month after protesting fraud in the elections...
The audits come as President Barack Obama is struggling to craft a war policy for Afghanistan that would establish a stable government in a country with few democratic traditions. Senior aides have made clear that Obama will not commit to sending additional troops until there is a legitimately elected government in Kabul.
$263 million in money from the U.S. Agency for International Development /USAID was channeled through to fund the elections and rebuilding projects. USAID money accounted for about 40 % of U.N. spending in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2009, audits said. [http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/u-n-office-of-project-services-audit-of-afghan-rebuilding-projects#p=1

pretend proxy niceties: "If they understand our side, they know the patience is running out"...
U.S. wants to widen area in Pakistan where it operates drones
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR201011...
The United States has renewed pressure on Pakistan to expand areas where CIA drones operate inside the country,...focused on the area surrounding the Pakistani city of Quetta...but also boundaries for drone strikes in the tribal areas, which have been targeted in 101 attacks this year... reflecting concern the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is being undermined by insurgents' continued ability to take sanctuary across the border...Pakistan agreed to more modest measures, including expanded CIA presence in Quetta...disagreement over the scope of the drone program underscores broader tensions between the United States and Pakistan, over rising levels of insurgent violence on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border...The CIA's drone campaign in Pakistan accelerated dramatically in recent months, with 47 attacks since the beginning of September... "If they understand our side, they know the patience is running out"...

US controlled military alliance for expanding imperialist world war:
"Strategic Concept: NATO 2020: Assured Security: Dynamic Engagement"
Afghanistan-Pakistan Model For Future 21st Century War
Rick Rozoff http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/nato-afghan-war-model-for-fut...
NATO unveils its first 21st century strategic doctrine in Lisbon this week... The invasion and nine years of combat operations in Afghanistan are logical – inevitable – results of the military alliance’s last Strategic Concept adopted at its fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C. in 1999. At the time NATO was waging its first full-scale war, the 78-day Operation Allied Force bombing assault against Yugoslavia, and had absorbed the first of what are now twelve members in Eastern Europe: The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Launching an unprovoked war of aggression and operating outside the territory of NATO member states – and outside international law without a United Nations mandate – inaugurated the U.S.-controlled military alliance as a global warfighting organization.
The war in Afghanistan beginning in the first year of the new century and millennium represented further implementation of the 1999 Strategic Concept, the first since the 1991 demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. “At the Washington Summit in April 1999, NATO Allies approved a strategy to equip the Alliance for the security challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and to guide its future political and military development.” [1] There are now 140,000 troops (the bulk of them American) from 50 nations serving with NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, more than the bloc’s previous out-of-area deployments – 60,000 in Bosnia in 1995, 50,000 in Kosovo in 1999 – combined....
A recent report estimates 100,000 Afghans killed in the war. Deaths by U.S. drone attacks and NATO helicopter gunship raids in Pakistan are approaching 2,000...the war that will be in its eleventh calendar year January 1 will continue to 2014, beyond 2014 and even for decades longer. NATO’s Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan Mark Sedwill said “the transition process may run into 2015 and beyond...
Transition, not withdrawal...
The calculated use of the word transition instead of exit...echoes Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, as reported by Pajhwok Afghan News on November 11 Holbrooke asserted "After 2014 the international community was not going to be leaving Afghanistan." [2]the US had 'no exit strategy’ for Afghanistan, instead a 'transition strategy’ would be unveiled in the Portuguese capital" during the NATO summit.(Sedwill and Holbrooke the "diplomatic" side, General David Petraeus on the military one as chief commander of all 152,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.)...
In line with the report serving as the foundation of the new Strategic Concept – "NATO 2020: Assured Security: Dynamic Engagement," prepared by a "group of experts" headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – Rasmussen indicated NATO’s priorities not only beyond the bloc’s borders but transcending all borders: "The purpose of the new strategic concept is to prepare the alliance to address the new security challenges – missile attacks, cyber attacks, terrorist attacks." [4] Leading up to the summit, NATO conducted the Cyber Coalition 2010 exercise from November 16-18. "Military experts from all NATO countries" were invited to take part and the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia (established in 2008) participated in the cyber warfare exercise. [5]...
Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "Some…declared the alliance dead at the end of the Cold War, when its job was to block Soviet tanks from rolling into West Germany. NATO demonstrated its value in the years that followed – transforming into a political engine for integrating the former Soviet states of Eastern Europe into the larger community of nations. A key element centers on NATO’s commitment to invest roughly $280 million over 10 years to link its missile defense capabilities with new missile systems being developed by the United States.... It should also provide a better bulwark against Iran." [6]
"[T]he United States is on track to provide the lion’s share of this capability. Our contribution, called the Phased Adaptive Approach, will exploit advances in sensor and interceptor technologies to swiftly deploy a strong, smart missile defense system. At the core of the system is the SM-3 missile, a proven ship-borne system that will also be deployed on land at sites in Romania (by 2015) and subsequently in Poland (by 2018)…." [8]...
Transition, not withdrawal...
From Washington to Brussels to Canberra... Interminable military deployments and combat operations in South and Central Asia as the model...With NATO already involved in airlifting Ugandan troops to Somalia, running naval operations in the Horn of Africa, arming and training Georgia and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus (on November 16 the NATO Parliamentary Assembly referred to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "occupied territories"), and pledging to "defend" the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania over which it has flown warplanes on continuous rotations since 2004, there will be no lack of opportunities to apply and expand the Afghanistan-Pakistan template.

Iran Laptop Papers Showed the Wrong Missile Warhead
Fraudulent Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program
By Gareth Porter
Thursday 18 November 2010 "t r u t h o u t" Since 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - with support of the US, Israel, UK, France and Germany - has been demanding Iran explain purported internal documents portraying a covert Iranian military program of research and development of nuclear weapons. The "laptop documents," supposedly obtained from a stolen Iranian computer by an unknown source and given to US intelligence in 2004, include a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle that appears to be an effort to accommodate a nuclear weapon, as well as reports on high explosives testing for what appeared to be a detonator for a nuclear weapon. In one report after another, the IAEA has suggested that Iran has failed to cooperate with its inquiry into that alleged research, and that the agency, therefore, cannot verify that it has not diverted nuclear material to military purposes... central to US policy toward Iran. The Obama administration says there can be no diplomatic negotiations with Iran unless Iran satisfies the IAEA fully in regard to the allegations derived from the documents that it had covert nuclear weapons program. That position is based on the premise that the intelligence documents that Iran has been asked to explain are genuine. The evidence now available, however, indicates that they are fabrications.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26868.htm

CYBERCOM for full-spectrum dominance
Pentagon Plans New Arm to Wage Cyberspace Wars
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29cyber.html?_r=1&th&emc=t...
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare.The military command would complement a civilian effort to be announced by President Obama on Friday that would overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks... Officials said that in addition to the unclassified strategy paper to be released by Mr. Obama on Friday, a classified set of presidential directives is expected to lay out the military’s new responsibilities and how it coordinates its mission with that of the N.S.A., where most of the expertise on digital warfare resides today...
The main dispute has been over whether the Pentagon or the National Security Agency should take the lead in preparing for and fighting cyberbattles. Under one proposal still being debated, parts of the N.S.A. would be integrated into the military command so they could operate jointly...
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pushed for the Pentagon to become better organized to address the security threat... The decision to create a cybercommand is a major step beyond the actions taken by the Bush administration, which authorized several computer-based attacks but never resolved the question of how the government would prepare for a new era of warfare fought over digital networks.... The creation of the cyberczar’s office inside the White House appears to be part of a significant expansion of the role of the national security apparatus there. A separate group overseeing domestic security, created by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, now resides within the National Security Council. A senior White House official responsible for countering the proliferation of nuclear and unconventional weapons has been given broader authority. Now, cybersecurity will also rank as one of the key threats that Mr. Obama is seeking to coordinate from the White House...
The strategy review Mr. Obama will discuss on Friday was completed weeks ago, but delayed because of continuing arguments over the authority of the White House office, and the budgets for the entire effort. It was kept separate from the military debate over whether the Pentagon or the N.S.A. is best equipped to engage in offensive operations. Part of that debate hinges on the question of how much control should be given to American spy agencies, since they are prohibited from acting on American soil. “It’s the domestic spying problem writ large,” one senior intelligence official said recently. “These attacks start in other countries, but they know no borders. So how do you fight them if you can’t act both inside and outside the United States?”
It is still unclear whether the military’s new command or the N.S.A. — or both — will actually conduct this new kind of offensive cyberoperations... Although Pentagon civilian officials and military officers said the new command was expected to initially be a subordinate headquarters under the military’s Strategic Command, which controls nuclear operations as well as cyberdefenses, it could eventually become an independent command. “No decision has been made,” said Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh, a Pentagon spokesman. “Just as the White House has completed its 60-day review of cyberspace policy, likewise, we are looking at how the department can best organize itself to fill our role in implementing the administration’s cyberpolicy.”... The White House has never said whether Mr. Obama embraces the idea that the United States should use cyberweapons, and the public announcement on Friday is expected to focus solely on defensive steps and the government’s acknowledgment that it needs to be better organized to face the threat from foes attacking military, government and commercial online systems....
Officials declined to describe potential offensive operations, but said they now viewed cyberspace as comparable to more traditional battlefields.
“We are not comfortable discussing the question of offensive cyberoperations, but we consider cyberspace a war-fighting domain,“ said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. “We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield, which includes protecting our freedom of movement and preserving our capability to perform in that environment.”

U.S. military cyberwar...
7/29/10 by Declan McCullagh, http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012121-281.html?tag=mncol;posts
...DoD created the U.S. Cyber Command [CYBERCOM] last spring allowing the U.S. armed forces to conduct "full-spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains," which includes destroying electronic infrastructure as thoroughly as a B-2 bomber would level a power plant. US current cyberwar policy remains vague. Earlier this year, a congressional committee asked Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, now head of NSA and Cyber Command, whether the use of offensive force would be "pre-authorized" below the level of the president, and whether there should be "classes" of networks operated by allies that should be off-limits to infusion. In his written response (PDF), Alexander refused to answer any of those questions publicly, saying the information was classified. ...Last year Rod Beckström, director of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Center quit saying NSA's takeover of Cyber Security threatens 'our democratic process'...Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA and NSA challenged attendees of Black Hat - thousands of programmers, analysts, and security researchers -to devise ways to reshape the Internet's security architecture[e.g. Microsoft-led 'secure trusted internet 2 architecture', in the works nearly a decade, requiring identification, authorization and probably payment to use]

since early capitalist 'manifest destiny', US bipartisan wars - political, military, economic & cultural - have all been for global supremacy
Al-Qaeda, Yemen, the New "Axis of Terror" and the "Great Game"
by Larry Chin
November 14, 2010 http://globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=21920
In the wake of numerous reported terror attacks, officials now proclaim Yemen a new "axis of terror", the Al-Qaeda splinter group, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and US-born cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, targets of a “war on terrorism” escalation. While mainstream media seeds mass hysteria, full-scale military operations intensify throughout the Arabian Sea region.
The “war on terrorism” in Yemen is the pretext for long-running imperial plans. The Arabian Sea region has been the arena for superpower conflict for decades. It is the center of the West's 21st century war for control of Middle East...an obsession of such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski for decades.

"A Geostrategy for Eurasia" 1997.
“… how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical… A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”
“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…”
Yemen, neighboring Saudi Arabia, at the gate of the Red Sea, is situated at one of the world’s most vital oil transportation “choke points”. The background for the current crisis in Yemen is sharply detailed in an analysis by William Engdahl: The Yemen Hidden Agenda: Behind the Al-Qaeda Scenarios, www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21733

“The strategic significance of the region between Yemen and Somalia becomes the point of geopolitical interest. It is the site of Bab el-Mandab, one of what the US Government lists as seven strategic world oil shipping chokepoints. The US Government Energy Information Agency states that "closure of the Bab el-Mandab could keep tankers from the Persian Gulf from reaching the Suez Canal/Sumed pipeline complex, diverting them around the southern tip of Africa. The Strait of Bab el-Mandab is a chokepoint between the horn of Africa and the Middle East, and a strategic link between the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean…. It would be in a position to threaten China’s oil transport from Port Sudan on the Red Sea just north of Bab el-Mandab, a major lifeline in China’s national energy needs.

Al Qaeda, the alleged global terrorist organization created by the late CIA-trained Saudi, Osama bin Laden, has opened a major new branch in Yemen for both Yemen and Saudi operations...The curious emergence of a tiny but well-publicized al Qaeda in southern Yemen amid what observers call a broad-based popular-based Southern Movement front serves to give the Pentagon a kind of casus belli to escalate US military operations in the strategic region.Indeed, after declaring that the Yemen internal strife was Yemen’s own affair, President Obama ordered air strikes in Yemen. Now the 2009 Christmas Day Detroit bomber drama gives new life to Washington’s "War on Terror" campaign in Yemen… Perhaps there is more to Washington’s recent Yemen concern than a rag-tag al Qaeda whose very existence as a global terror organization has been doubted by seasoned Islamic experts.”

Who or what is Anwar al-Awlaki?
As documented by Michel Chossudovsky in America’s “War on Terrorism”, “Islamic terrorism”, including “Al-Qaeda” are assets of the CIA, a myth designed to obscure a vast covert operation and global war agenda. The “Militant Islamic Network” is a military-intelligence network that has been “run” on behalf of Anglo-American interests.
Now “Al-Qaeda”, the eternal covert operation and propaganda apparatus, has been given a facelift. A new generation of Osama bin Laden “disciples” threatens the world, now led by "homegrown Al-Qaeda" terrorists with operational ties to AQAP. Anwar Al-Awlaki, an AQAP regional commander, has become public enemy number one. The New Mexico-born cleric is a prime suspect for the foiled UPS cargo plane bomb plot (which US and Saudi intelligence knew about several weeks before it happened.), even though Yemeni officials are not clear about his role. He is wanted in Yemen for a suspected role for the October killing of a French oil company executive, and also wanted for the failed bombing of a US-bound plane in December 2009. He is also accused of having an e-mail connection to the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and for giving jihadist sermons. Atop the CIA’s “capture or kill” list, Al-Awlaki has been connected to 9/11 through reported associations with some of the so-called 9/11 hijackers. The rise of Al-Awlaki coincides with the naming of Adnan Shukrijumah as a new leader of “Al-Qaeda” global operations with an alleged connection to 9/11.
Just as Osama bin Laden has allegedly been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan for almost a decade without detection, Al-Awlaki is reportedly in a mountain hideout in Yemen, where he is difficult if not impossible to locate.
A close examination of Al-Awlaki’s life reveals a bizarre career throughout which he has been thoroughly monitored and interrogated by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and arrested and interrogated numerous times... covered like a blanket by intelligence authorities... permitted to live and travel freely and extensively throughout the US and the world...[including] San Diego, California... and Falls Church, Virginia, a short distance from CIA headquarters.[...]
The Big Lie keeps gets bigger
The perpetual threats by a fabricated enemy, and a fearful populace... have been consistently maintained by both Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations. State-manufactured “terrorist” atrocities, provocations and false flag operations...ramped up to manipulate populations...serving elite agendas across the "Grand Area".

'testing' germany's compliance with u.s. global terror war threat
Detonator at Namibian Airport Was Test Device
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/world/europe/20germany.html?ref=world
BERLIN — German authorities said Friday a laptop case carrying bomb components found at a Namibian airport was an American-made device designed to test airport security...
Germany had resisted declaring a public terrorism alert for many weeks, even when it repeatedly emerged at the center of new concerns....The government had been under pressure from Washington to take the threats more seriously. Officials in Berlin said they received angry calls from a White House official, demanding stepped-up vigilance efforts — calls that were passed on to Mrs. Merkel. But Germany held to its view that the threats against it were “abstract.” That changed Wednesday after German officials learned luggage screeners had found the untagged laptop bag in Namibia and, scanning it, discovered the strange batteries-fuse-clock contraption... hours before the German interior minister warned the nation of a concrete threat of a terrorist strike and raised the country’s threat assessment level....

Dummy-Bomb Maker in an Unaccustomed Spotlight
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/business/global/20device.html
...Mr. Copello said he was restricted in what he could say about the devices or how they are tracked after they leave his factory. “We’re very stringent about who has these and who does not,” Mr. Copello said. “Who we deal with is very classified, and we have very strict purchasing practices. We don’t divulge anything that would compromise our security.” ...He and his brother, now deceased, began working in a machine shop in 1973, later he began tinkering with testing devices. In 1988, he said, the Federal Aviation Administration first approached him about making some for the agency....[ earlier version of this article misstated which worker at the company had assembled a device for testing airport security found in Namibia. The worker was the mother-in-law of the owner of the company, not the 80 year old grandmother.]

US firm confirms manufacturing Namibia fake bomb
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-87761.html
Nov 19: The owner of a small firm in California confirmed Friday he was the manufacturer of the fake suitcase bomb, intended for security training, that was found in a Namibian airport.
Larry Copello, owner and president of Larry Copello Inc, which has a handful of employees in the small Sierra Nevada town of Sonora, east of San Francisco, told DPA that the cases are sold for security training to US government agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees security at US airports. Other clients include foreign governments, including embassies, and corporate security firms, he said. Copello said his products are distributed through a security firm in San Francisco, which he refused to identify.

tinkering mom-pop-granny-correction- mother-in-law-op
Search Keyword Larry Copello Inc. Total 5 results found.
HighCom Security Military Law Enforcement Screening Systems EOD/IED Detection Public Sector HighCom Security is a worldwide security equipment provider based in San Francisco, California. We design, manufacture and distribute a unique range of leading security products.. Our management team has over 25 years of experience in the defense and law enforcement sectors... extensive history in providing the best in tactical surveillance systems. The RDSS is a Rapidly Deployable Surveillance System. The system is wireless and battery (or AC) powered for use in a variety of operating environments.... http://www.highcomsecurity.com/surveillance/

'they' hate us for our values...don't you?
Nine Years Too Long
Lt. Col. Barry Wingard
T r u t h o u t, November 20, 2010
In 2002, my client, Kuwaiti citizen Fayiz Al-Kandari, was captured by Pakistani forces and sold to the United States military. Since he has been confined without charge at America's notorious island prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for almost nine years.On various occasions since 2002, Kuwait politely asked the United States to return Fayiz and the other remaining Kuwaiti detainee to Kuwaiti control. Each time, the United States refused Kuwait's request, citing concerns about the country's ability to monitor or rehabilitate its returned citizens. In response, Kuwait has constructed a multi-million dollar rehabilitation center, diligently monitored the detainees returned previously, and taken action to address each of the United States' concerns. Still, the U.S. answer remains the same...America cannot convict them in court and must therefore resolve their cases by some alternate means.Unfortunately, such "alternate means" may be indefinite detention, the most draconian tool in President Obama's foreign policy arsenal. Indefinite detention involves a decision that a particular detainee cannot be successfully prosecuted (due to insufficient evidence) and cannot be released (because of alleged connections to an enemy). Thus, the unfortunate subject is "indefinitely detained" until "cessation of hostilities" - which, in the War on Terror, will never occur. In essence - a life sentence without trial, based upon secret information reviewed by secret individuals in secret proceedings.

NB: zero to do with 'national security', except US imperialism's, nor with u.s. bogeyman 'al qaeda' since US x-ray machines don't image body cavities, but are state surveillance /database terror machines, obscured by focusing this fascist degradation on 'privacy rights'
I Feel You
by Linh Dinh / November 20, 2010
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/11/i-feel-you/#more-25310
It’s no big deal... strap people onto boards, pour water on their faces, drowning them, more or less, in our name, but don’t make a big fuss until they nudge our nuts... incinerate countless bodies... shock and awe, but don’t go berserk until they palm our inner thighs...commit countless crimes, profit and murder... destroy nations, including this one, imperial...without mercy.. but don’t mess with our junks