2/7 Extreme War Measures Guarantee Further Defeat: part 1


Hillary Clinton’s Speech 1/29/10 on Future of European Security
...The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to foster security on a global scale. Today, I’d like to discuss the core principles that guide the United States today as we consider the future of European security and our role in shaping, strengthening, and sustaining it. But first, let me address some questions raised in recent months about the depth of the United States commitment to European security. Some wonder whether we understand the urgent need to improve security in Europe. Others have voiced concern that the Obama Administration is so focused on foreign policy challenges elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded in our list of priorities. Well, in fact, European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our prosperity...
Human rights and universal values, shared as part of our common history between Europe and the United States, must always be a cornerstone of our security efforts, because if Europe is not secure, Europe cannot lead. And we need European leadership in the 21st century.

But European security is far more than a strategic interest of my country. It is also an expression of our values. We stand with Europe today, as we have stood with Europe for decades, because enduring bonds connect our nations and our peoples. We are united by an understanding of the importance of liberty and freedom. We have fought and died for each other’s liberty and freedom. These are ties that cannot and never should be broken. And we seek both to venerate and reinforce them by helping to maintain peace and security in Europe, today and all the tomorrows to come.

But as we move forward, a set of core principles will guide us in our approach and in our joint effort. First, the cornerstone of security is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. Much of the suffering that occurred in Europe during the 20th century emanated from a failure to respect borders or to honor the right of all nations to pursue their own foreign policies, choose their own allies, and provide for their own self-defense. These are fundamental rights of free nations and must and will remain vigilant in our efforts to oppose any attempt to undermine them....

So that brings us to our second principle: Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public discourse around Europe’s security has been fixed on geographical and political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States as its partner.

Third, we will maintain an unwavering commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty that an attack on one is an attack on all... As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about building a new missile defense architecture that will defend all of NATO territory against ballistic missile attack. And we are serious about exploring ways to cooperate with Russia to develop missile defenses that enhance the security of all of Europe, including Russia. Missile defense, we believe, will make this continent a safer place. That safety could extend to Russia, if Russia decides to cooperate with us. It is an extraordinary opportunity for us to work together to build our mutual security...

Our work extends beyond Europe as well. With the EU, we are fighting poverty and strengthening institutions in Yemen, Haiti, and Pakistan, among others. With NATO and other European partners, we’re working side by side to encourage accountable, effective governments
in Afghanistan. European and American voices speak as one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran. European and American governments and non-governmental actors operate together and in parallel to promote economic and democratic development in Africa...

This partnership is about so much more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on defense, but on offense. There is so much that the West has to be proud of and to lay a claim to. We believe and we have the evidence to prove it that democracy works and can deliver for citizens if leaders are committed to the enterprise, and if democracies are about more than just elections; if we build institutions of independent judiciaries and free media and protection of minority rights and so much else, that we have worked and labored to create. We are closer than ever to achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the sum of its parts, that stands for these values that have stood the test of time, and worked strategically to move toward a vision that may need to be updated and modernized, but is timely. The United States is honored to stand by your side as we take the next steps towards fulfilling that vision.

"I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger " National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones
Gen. Jones's Remarks to the Munich Security Conference Hotel Bayerischer Hof Munich, Germany February 9, 2009

James Jones: U.S. To Expand Eastern European Missile Deployments
September 15, 2009
President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser James Jones announced the US has launched a new phase of deploying its missile defence systems in Eastern Europe. According to Jones, the United States will interact on deploying antimissile missiles in Europe with all its partners, namely Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania, and also continue talks with Russia.... Moscow has repeatedly suggested that Washington interact with Russia in the missile defence area by using Russia’s radar base in Armavir and another one in Gabala, which Russia is leasing from Azerbaijan.... Pending the deployment of the first ground-based missiles Europe’s coasts will be patrolled by US warships with missiles on board.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/02/06/4196575.html http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/02/05/4170388.html

Putin warns US over missile defence:
Russia must develop new offensive weapons to counter US missile defences and prevent US policymakers from feeling they can "do whatever they want," Vladimir Putin, the country's prime minister, said http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/20091229134142350297.ht...

... US dominated geostrategic world war council...
Bases, Missiles, Wars: U.S. Consolidates Global Military Network
By Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO
Jan. 28, 2010
"The international community are [sic] coming together to fully align military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy." [1]
In the two days preceding the conference NATO's Military Committee will meet at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. "Together with the Chiefs of Defence of all 28 NATO member states, 35 Chiefs of Defence of Partner countries and Troop Contributing Nations will also be present." [2]
That is, top military commanders from 63 nations - almost a third of the world's 192 countries - will gather at NATO Headquarters to discuss the next phase of the expanding war in South Asia and the bloc's new Strategic Concept. Among those who will attend the two-day Military Committee meeting are General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan; Admiral James Stavridis, chief U.S. military commander in Europe and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander; Pakistani Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Israeli Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.
Former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright has been invited to speak about the Strategic Concept on behalf of the twelve-member Group of Experts she heads, whose task it is to promote NATO's 21st century global doctrine...

Afghanistan is occupying center stage at the moment, but in the wings are complementary maneuvers to expand a string of new military bases and missile shield facilities throughout Eurasia and the Middle East.The advanced Patriot theater anti-ballistic missile batteries in place or soon to be in Egypt, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates describe an arc stretching from the Baltic Sea through Southeast Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Caucasus and beyond to East Asia. A semicircle that begins on Russia's northwest and ends on China's northeast...Over the past decade the United States has steadily (though to much of the world imperceptibly) extended its military reach to most all parts of the world. From subordinating almost all of Europe to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization through the latter's expansion into Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, to arbitrarily setting up a regional command that takes in the African continent (and all but one of its 53 nations). From invading and establishing military bases in the Middle East and Central and South Asia to operating a satellite surveillance base in Australia and taking charge of seven military installations in South America. In the vacuum left in much of the world by the demise of the Cold War and the former bipolar world, the U.S. rushed in to insert its military in various parts of the world that had been off limits to it before. It has employed a series of tactics to accomplish its objective of unchallenged international armed superiority, using an expanding NATO to build military partnerships not only throughout Europe but in the Caucasus, the Middle East, North and West Africa, Asia and Oceania as well as employing numerous bilateral and regional arrangements...

The January 26 Chief of Defense session of NATO's Military Committee with top military leaders of 63 countries attending - while the bloc is waging and escalating the world's largest and lengthiest war thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean - is indicative of the pass the post-Cold War world has arrived at. Never in any context other than meetings of NATO's Military Committee do the military chiefs of so many nations (including at least five of the world's eight nuclear powers), practically a third of the world's, gather together. That the current meeting is dedicated to NATO operations on three continents and in particular to the world's only military bloc's new Strategic Concept for the 21st century - and for the planet - would have been deemed impossible twenty or even ten years ago. As would have been the U.S. and its NATO allies invading and occupying a Middle Eastern and a South Asian nation. And the elaboration of plans for an international interceptor missile system with land, air, sea and space components. In fact, though, all have occurred or are underway and all are integrated facets of a concerted drive for global military superiority... All while Washington cannot credibly pretend it is threatened by any nation on earth.

NATO Nations Resolve to Accomplish Main Priorities for 2010
5 February, NATO Ministers met with non-NATO ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] partners to review main priorities in Afghanistan for 2010.

these excerpts don't do justice to this stunning exposure of the absolute arrogance driving the U.S. world domination war...
US Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate
Rick Rozoff
January 31, 2010
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in London and Paris last week advancing the new Euro-Atlantic agenda for the world. As the top foreign policy official of what her commander-in-chief Barack Obama touted as the world's sole military superpower on December 10, she is no ordinary foreign minister. Her position is rather some composite of several from previous historical epochs: Viceroy, proconsul, imperial nuncio. When a U.S. secretary of state speaks the world pays heed. Any nation that doesn't will suffer the consequences of that inattention, that disrespect toward the imperatrix mundi.
On January 27 she was in London for a conference on Yemen and the following day she attended the International Conference on Afghanistan in the same city.Also on the 28th she and two-thirds of her NATO quad counterparts, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (along with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton), pronounced a joint verdict on the state of democracy in Nigeria, Britain's former colonial possession.

Afterwards she crossed the English channel and delivered an address called Remarks on the Future of European Security at L'Ecole Militaire in Paris on January 29. That presentation was the most substantive component of her three-day European junket and the only one that dealt mainly with the continent itself, her previous comments relating to what are viewed by the United States and its Western European NATO partners as backwards, "ungovernable" international badlands. That is, the rest of the world.

While in Paris, Clinton held a joint press conference with her counterpart Kouchner and said, "we...discussed the results of the London meetings on Yemen and Afghanistan. We have a lot of work ahead of us. We appreciate greatly the support that France has given in developing a European police force mission to support NATO in its effort to train police.
"We will be consulting even more closely. Our work in Africa is particularly important. I applaud France for resuming diplomatic relations with Rwanda, and I also appreciate greatly the work that Bernard and the government here is doing in Guinea and in other African countries." [1] Rwanda and Guinea (Conakry) are former French colonies.

Two days before she made a similar joint appearance in London with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr Abdullah al-Qirbi. Yemen is a former British colony. The conference on that country held on January 27 also included the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, but not Secretary General Amr Moussa or any other representative of the 22-member Arab League.

Having the foreign minister of the unpopular government in Yemen that the U.S. is waging a covert - and not so covert - war to defend against mass opposition in both the north and south of the nation and the foreign minister of the nation that is bombing villages and killing hundreds of civilians in the north was sufficient for the Barack Obama and Gordon Brown governments. A war on the Arabian peninsula whose three major belligerents are the Yemeni government, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is not viewed by Washington and London as a matter that 20 other Arab nations need to be consulted about....

"How do we cooperate across geographic distance with countries in other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And there is a modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in Afghanistan. "In many ways, it’s quite remarkable, the success of this alliance. Yesterday at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the United States, under President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. And member nations, NATO and ISAF – the international partners – have come up with a total of 9,000 more troops....NATO is leading the way, but NATO has to determine in what ways it can cooperate with others. I think that the world that we face of failing states, non-state actors, networks of terrorists, rogue regimes – North Korea being a prime example – really test the international community. And it’s a test we have to pass. Now, there are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not our responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I don’t think that’s an adequate response. "[C]yber security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and countries, are likely to cross borders. We have to know how to defend against them and we have to enlist nations who are likeminded to work with. Similarly, with energy problems, attacks on pipelines, attacks on container ships, attacks on electric grids will have consequences far beyond boundaries. And it won’t just be NATO nations. NATO nations border non-NATO nations."

A small consortium of Western nations, two in North America and 26 in Europe - though most of the latter are nothing more than slavishly subservient junior partners - has appointed itself, for its own interests, the arbiter of world affairs in all matters from judging the political legitimacy of governments to who receives energy supplies from whom to the most urgent question of all, when and against whom wars can be launched. [13] Clinton's speech in Paris signaled her country's intention to formalize and extend that role throughout the world in the 21st century.
Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato Blog site: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ To subscribe e-mail: rwrozoff@yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available

Unite to save u.s. imperialism & my ass fellow christian soldiers
Obama, at Prayer Breakfast, urges civil debate
President Obama lamented the "erosion of civility" in the nation's political debate, telling an audience at the National Prayer Breakfast there is a growing sense that "something is broken" in Washington... Speaking at the Hilton Washington hotel to an audience that included Vice President Biden, congressional leaders, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and an array of religious leaders and foreign dignitaries, Obama called on the group to step outside its comfort zone to bridge divisions and unite around common goals. The prayer breakfast has been held in Washington for more than half a century, and every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has taken part. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had written a letter asking Obama to boycott the event, saying its sponsor, the Fellowship Foundation, is * a "shadowy religious association" that preaches "an unconventional brand of Christianity." It also said the group is linked to efforts by Uganda's political leadership to pass anti-gay legislation, including the death penalty for HIV-infected people convicted of having sex with someone of the same gender...

CREW To Obama: Skip The National Prayer Breakfast
Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lashed out at the fundamentalist Fellowship Foundation, which has organized the breakfast with presidents and prominent Washington and world leaders since 1953. "The National Prayer Breakfast uses the suggested imprimatur of the elected leaders who attend to give the Fellowship greater credibility and facilitate its networking and fundraising," CREW director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. "The president and members of Congress should not legitimatize this cult-like group -- the head of which has praised the organizing abilities of Hitler and Bin Laden -- by attending the breakfast. Obama plans to attend the breakfast, scheduled for Thursday, but had no response to CREW's letter. The Fellowship is closely connected to the now-notorious C Street House near the Capitol -- essentially a dorm for ethically-troubled Republicans. Very little is known about the Fellowship. As Newsweek reported last September, "Nothing about its organizational structure is visible to the public: not its board of directors, nor its executive team, nor its mission statement, nor its 200 subsidiary ministries, nor its national or global membership." Click here for a PDF of CREW's letter

Obama's Wild Weekend: A Worldwide Surge in Warmongering
Empire Burlesque - Chris Floyd
Even as progressives were savoring Barack Obama's "masterful" – indeed, "brain-searing" – performance at the House Republicans' retreat last Friday, their dazzling champion was busy applying himself with renewed and reckless vigor to that most un-progressive of occupations: saber-rattling around the world. The last few days have certainly seen a remarkable display of bellicosity by the Obama Administration, putting almost every tool in the militarist kit to use: nukes, ships, missiles, money, proxies and war-profiteering. With just a few flicks of the imperial wrist, Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.
There was the sale of $6.4 billion in military hardware to Taiwan... a hard slap to the Chinese – who responded to this stirring of hair-trigger cross-strait tensions by "canceling talks between senior Chinese and US officials on strategic security, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation," as the Guardian notes. Well, if there's one thing the world needs less of today, it's more cooperation on strategic security, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, right? ... Obama... is asking Congress to increase funding for the nation's nuclear arsenal by $5 billion, McClatchy reports...Much of this extra money will be spent on new facilities that will enable the government to build new nuclear warheads whenever it chooses...
Obama was also busy slaughtering a few more villagers in Pakistan with ever-accelerating "drone" attacks. The latest attack was Saturday night, which killed nine people in North Waziristan. This capped a month in which American drones killed "123 innocent Pakistanis," as The News of Pakistan reports. Ten of the 12 raids "went wrong and failed to hit their targets," but the robots did manage to assassinate three men alleged, by someone somewhere on some kind of evidence, or not, to be "al-Qaeda leaders."...

But the centerpiece of Obama's wild warmonger weekend was the leaked-on-purpose news of the deployment of a bristling "missile shield" to four countries in the Middle East, along with the dispatch of even more warships to join those already poised with minatory intent around the Persian Gulf. The ostensible aim of this sudden outpouring of ordnance to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait is to "protect" these nations from an attack by Iran – a nation which has not attacked anyone for centuries, but which is itself under relentless, open, repeated threat of attack from the United States, and one of its regional proxies, Israel.

Word of the new deployment came just hours after the U.S. Senate voted to impose even more draconian sanctions on Iran: crippling measures that will only make life much more wretched and dangerous for millions of ordinary Iranians... aimed chiefly at strangling Iran's supplies of gasoline --- a truly noble act of "humanitarian intervention," which, if successful, would see deliveries of essential food and supplies grind to a halt, fire trucks and ambulances parked, schools closed, mass business failures across the country, with the subsequent loss of jobs, homes, health and opportunity. The Iranian ruling elite will of course be spared any of these discomforts – just as our own ruling elite forever escapes even the slightest unpleasant consequence of its actions.

Some observers seem to regard the Senate move as some kind of rebuke to Obama, "taking Iran policy out of his hands" by force; but the deployment of the new war machinery to the region – which was accompanied by sales of military upgrades to the savagely oppressive religious extremists in Saudi Arabia – shows that the American political elite is, as usual, marching in lockstep when it comes to "projecting dominance" and threatening grave punishments (up and including "obliteration," because, as we all know, "all elements of national power" are always "on the table" at all times) for any rogue nations that fail to follow the Potomac line. (And a comparison between the repressive regime in Iran and the far more repressive regime in Saudi Arabia shows us clearly that it the line-following, not lack of freedom, that determines whether a nation is "rogue" or not.)

But we should not see this weekend's machinations in the Persian Gulf as moving the United States closer to war with Iran. The United States has been at war with Iran for a long time now, running and/or assisting armed terrorist groups inside the country to kill scores of people year after year, as we noted here last year. No, what we are seeing now is just another "surge" in the barely covert war with Iran – a war that in some ways has been going on for decades, and flares up any time a government in Tehran fails to show due obeisance. As I noted in that earlier piece, which came out just before the disputed Iranian election, and just after yet another terrorist attack in Iran:

Because the ultimate aim -- the only aim, really -- of the policy toward Iran is regime change. They don't care about "national security" or the "threat" from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal; they know there is no threat whatsoever that Iran will attack Israel -- or even more ludicrously, the United States -- even if Tehran did have nukes. They don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people under a draconian, repressive and corrupt regime. They are not worried about Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism," for, as we've seen, the militarists thrive on -- when they are not actively fomenting -- the fear and anguish caused by terrorism. This fear is the grease that drives the ever-expanding war machine and 'justifies' its own ever-increasing draconian powers and corruption.

No, in the end, the sole aim is to overthrow Iran's current political system and replace it with a regime that will bow to the hegemony of the United States and its regional deputy, Israel. There is no essential difference in aim or method between today's policy and that of 1953. (Except that the regional deputy in those days was Britain, not Israel.) What they want is compliance, access to resources and another strategic stronghold in the heart of the oil lands -- precisely what they wanted, and got, with the installation of the Shah and his corruption-ridden police state more than a half-century ago.

They play the long game... they agitated openly -- and plotted covertly -- for the invasion of Iraq for almost 10 years before they finally got their way. They have worked for 30 years now to restore a client regime in Iran, and today, with the relentless bipartisan demonizing of the Iranians -- and the "mushroom cloud" fearmongering over a non-existent nuclear weapons program -- they are as close as they have ever been to their goal.[...]

U.S. Extends Missile Buildup From Poland And Taiwan To Persian Gulf
By Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO
February 3, 2010
On January 20 Poland’s Defense Ministry revealed that a U.S. Patriot missile battery previously scheduled to be stationed near the nation’s capital will instead be deployed to a Baltic Sea location 35 miles from Russian territory; on January 29 the White House approved the transfer of 114 Patriot missiles to Taiwan as part of a $6.5 billion arms package that also includes eight warships the receiving nation plans to upgrade for the Aegis Combat System with the capacity for carrying Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) ship-based anti-ballistic missiles.
On January 22 head of the Pentagon’s Central Command General David Petraeus told an audience at the private Institute for the Study of War that two warships equipped with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System “are in the Gulf at all times now.” [1] A news report on the same day remarked “That statement – along with the stationing of other U.S. air defense assets in the region – sends a strong signal to Iran….” [2]
The New York Times reported on January 30 that the U.S. was expediting the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptor missiles to four Persian Gulf nations – Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – thereby paralleling the combination of sea-based Aegis and land-based Patriot missiles intended for the Taiwan Strait aimed at China and in the Baltic Sea targeting Russia...

China and Russia, by not capitulating to U.S. and Western European pressure to enforce further, even more onerous sanctions against Iran of the type that have in recent years been followed by all-our war against other nations, have frequently been chastised by U.S. leaders, with China lately being dressed down by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, about whom it cannot be said as President John Quincey Adams claimed of the early American republic that “she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

China has suspended military contacts with Washington and threatened sanctions against American arms firms involved in the completion of the $6.5 billion deal with Taiwan.

With the release of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review which calls for a record $708 billion in Pentagon spending next year, Bloomberg News ran a feature titled “China, Iran Prompt U.S. Air-Sea Battle Plan in Strategy Review” which stated “The U.S. military is drawing up a new air-sea battle plan in response to threats such as China’s persistent military build-up and Iran’s possession of advanced weapons.” Pentagon chief Robert Gates was quoted as alluding to – in an obvious reference to China – “the military modernization programs of other countries” and of the Quadrennial Defense Review in general that “This is truly a wartime QDR.” [15]

“The budget underscored the administration’s commitment to a ‘robust defense against emerging missile threats,’ saying it would pay for use of increasingly capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors and a range of sensors in Europe.” [16]

The blatant provocations against Russia and China of late last month are being repeated against Iran.

The Times of London on February 1 reminded its readers that “The UAE and Saudi Arabia have bought more than $25 billion of US arms in the past two years. Abu Dhabi has bought $17 billion of US hardware since 2008, including Patriot anti-missile systems, while the UAE as a whole recently bought 80 F16 jets.” It also recalled, even more ominously, that “The chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen…said last month that the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Mr Obama call for them.” [17]
An integral part of plans to contain and confront Iran is the Pentagon buildup in and near the Persian Gulf. Last year United Press International published a report that “Middle Eastern countries are expected to spend more than $100 billion over the next five years….Most of the procurement will be carried out by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Israel….The core of this arms-buying spree will undoubtedly be the $20 billion U.S. package of weapons systems over 10 years for the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.” [18]

On January 27 in the United Arab Emirates “The UAE Armed Forces [began] military training with the US Central Command (Centcom) along with armed forces from other GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and friendly countries.” [19]
Last October and November the U.S. and Israel conducted their largest-ever joint military exercise, Juniper Cobra 2009, which tested five interceptor missile systems in tandem. [20]...

Were a leading defense official of any other nation to publicly promote that agenda the newspapers of the world would report it and the Pentagon, State Department and White House would not be silent on the matter. The American media and the government alike would condemn it for what it is: A threat to world peace and to the world itself.
Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. Is the manager of the Stop NATO international email list at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/

USraeli's 'new strategic concept' faces more of the same political and military bounds: unbeatable resistance that has defeated its plans to date
US psywar: giving them the opportunity to see the inevitability...and just accept that'
US-NATO advertise planned offensive in southern Afghanistan
U.S. and NATO officials...keen to talk about what they touted as their biggest joint operation since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001... dubbed the planned offensive Operation Moshtarak, which means "together" in Dari. It is meant to underscore how Afghan forces are intended to play a key role, along with U.S. Marines, British forces and other foreign troops. Advance word of the assault on Marja had circulated so widely by Friday that reporters from other allied countries wanted to know whether their troops would take part, too... NATO officials said an allied force, led by U.S. Marines, was preparing for an assault on the town of Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand province. Senior military officials began touting the offensive, the first operation since a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan, even before President Obama announced in early December that he would be sending more forces to the country. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, said the offensive would start "relatively soon." When asked why he and other commanders were being so open about their plans, he said it was partly to try to persuade as many Afghans as possible in Marja to throw down their arms and side against the Taliban. "If they want to fight, then obviously that will have to be an outcome. But if they don't want to fight, that's fine, too," he told reporters Thursday. "We'd much rather have them see the inevitability that things are changing and just accept that. And we think we can give them that opportunity. At a news conference in Istanbul, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was asked whether troops from Georgia -- which is not a NATO member but recently deployed forces to assist the Afghan mission -- would take part. "I honestly don't know," Gates replied. More than 15,000 troops will be deployed for the attack, Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, a British commander, told the Daily Telegraph of London. "This operation is bigger than anything that has gone before, and yes there will have to be a fight," he said.

Afghan resistance statement Can We Call This Reconciliation?
After the London Conference, the Kabul surrogate administration farcically speaks of peace and reconciliation. Hamid Karzai, Head of the stooge administration, visited Saudi Arabia to request Saudi King Abdullah to mediate between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Kabul regime and, by extension, with the USA. However, if we ponder over the whole process of reconciliation, we see that it is no more than an eye-wash, designed to ostensibly show to the public of these countries who are against the war, that the power-that-be wants peace and an end to the current war. But, contrarily, Pentagon is at present making preparation for a new military operations in Helmand province, south Afghanistan. Similarly, they put forward conditions, which are tantamount to escalating the war rather than ending it. For example, they want Mujahideen to lay down arms; accept the Constitution and renounce violence. None can name this reconciliation...http://www.uruknet.de/?p=62996

"...Marjah is being readied for the Fallujah option..."
Annals of Liberation: Obama Surge Driving Thousands From Their Homes
2-7-10 Empire Burlesque - Chris Floyd
Barack Obama's Bush-like "surge" in Afghanistan has not even reached its full strength yet, but is already driving tens of thousands of Afghan civilians from their homes, as they flee an upcoming massive attack in Helmand province. The attack -- which the Americans have been trumpeting far in advance -- is designed, we're told, to "protect" the people of the key town of Marjah from the twin scourges of Taliban nogoodniks and drug traffickers. Yet the primary effect of the much-publicized preparations has been to send the residents of the town running for their lives to escape becoming part of the "collateral damage" that always attends these protective, humanitarian endeavors. Indeed, the real aim of the advance publicity for the attack seems to be forcing mass numbers of civilians to hit the road -- which will then allow the American and British attackers to claim that anyone left behind is an enemy. This in turn will free up the attackers to use heavy weaponry in a "free-fire" zone to clear out the "diehards." ...

A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, as the Nato troops are known, said the main reason for publicity for the operation was to encourage insurgents to leave, but if civilians were also encouraged to evacuate that would be "helpful". Yes, always helpful to do some pre-winnowing of a densely populated area before you destroy it with mortars and air-to-ground missiles. But of course, while thousands of civilians flee, thousands more have "remained because they could not afford to leave," the Guardian reports. How many of these will be re-classifed as "enemy fighters" when their corpses are found in the ruins? The Afghans themselves know the score: A Marjah resident, an elder reached by phone, who was not prepared to give his name, said he had evacuated his family a week ago because he feared "the worst attack ever". "Always when they storm a village the foreign troops never care about civilian casualties at all. And at the end of the day they report the deaths of women and children as the deaths of Taliban," he said.
Slaughter, ruin, fear and exile: yeah, it's the Good War, all right! "The war we should be fighting," as our tough-guy libs kept telling us when putting their always serious, always "nuanced" objections to the Iraq "fiasco" in proper context. Well, they have it now, the war they always wanted. And who knows? Maybe soon they can have their own Fallujah! Won't that be a great apotheosis of Progressivism?

Taliban rejects Karzai's offer
Aljazeera.net, 2-6-10
The Afghan Taliban rejected the offer of Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, to get fighters to reconcile with the government. In a statement posted on the Taliban's alemarah.info website on Sunday, the group called the attempt "futile" and "farcical"... "This is not the first time that the Kabul regime and the invading countries want to throw dust into the eyes of the public of the world by announcing reconciliation in words and, in practice, make preparation for war," ...

Defeat of all defeats: Giants from Afghanistan changed the world
by Moin Ansari Feb 6, 2010
Obama announced the New Strategy for Afghanistan, and “has come to the determination through a series of deliberations, and getting a strategy for how to go forward in Afghanistan” with the intention “to finish the job.” He has thus ordered a surge of 30,000 troops, increasing the total US commitment to about 100,000, bolstered by 45,000 NATO troops. He hopes to finish the job in three years time and then withdraw. He defines the objectives as under: “Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.”... then proceeds to say that nothing would succeed in Afghanistan without the help from Pakistan: “We will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.” And “there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.”

On the face of it, this strategy is flawed, because the 30,000 troops surge will not help win the war...they would need 10 times more troops to achieve even a semblance of success... Paddy Ashdon rightly comments: “We are not succeeding in this war, but failing at an accelerated rate, failing both at political and military level.”
The second flaw in this policy is that “we arc fighting a common enemy.” American and their allies are fighting Afghan freedom fighters, who are not our enemies, whereas the Pakistan Army is fighting our own angry tribals, who are not our enemies either.... Foreign occupation will not be vacated and state sponsored terrorism will continue and peace in Afghanistan and the region will remain hostage in the hands of the oppressors....

Washington’s ties with Beijing, as well as ostensible importance accorded to Pakistan, which India considers betrayal, “driven by the fear of a re-hyphenation with Pakistan and a threat to its global ambitions.” India therefore thinks USA has “tended to use Pakistan as the fulcrum of South Asia, and sees India as one knotty strand in the Afghan tangle” (Indian Express). The Indo-US relations since 2004 have come a long way, since they entered into the strategic partnership with declared objectives “to contain and curb the rising threat of Chinese military and economic power and Islamic extremism.” Therefore, the defeat of the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan would also mean defeat for India and its hegemonic designs over South Asia...

It is a turning point of history, which offers great opportunities to Pakistan, and the possibility of friendly relations with India, but unfortunately, there is a deadlock with India on the Kashmir issue. In fact India is on the retreat as it failed to recognise the geo-strategic shift and opted to join hands with the American hegemon to establish influence over Afghanistan and South Asia, which betrayed its colonial ambitions. The resistance in Kashmir is growing rapidly and after the withdrawal of the occupation forces from Afghanistan, it will assume new dimensions in support of the right of self-determination, which India cannot continue to deny for long...

The United States of America and their allies are faced with a situation in Afghanistan, similar to the one the Soviets faced in 1989. Having suffered defeat, the Soviets asked for a safe exit, which was provided by the mujahideen and the Pakistan government. Obama’s new strategy in fact, is a veiled request for safe exit. “It is a gamble. The price of victory will be high and the price of failure is incalculable” (Simon Tisdold). Exit they will, along with their allies and peace would prevail over the entire region. Thus the foreign aggression which has continued unabated, since 1979 – killing over six million Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Palestine, Lebanon, Kashmir and Pakistan is now is on the retreat,

***Pakistan: "U.S. Does Not Invade Sovereign Countries"
Daily Times Monitor
US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen on Thursday said he believed the top leadership of Al Qaeda, including Osama Bin Laden, was in Pakistan. Talking to Al Jazeera TV, Mullen said Al Qaeda was on top of the US list of priorities and threats around the world. When asked why the United States was not in FATA despite having the knowledge that Al Qaeda was present there, he said, "Because FATA is in Pakistan and Pakistan is a sovereign country and we do not go into sovereign countries."...We have trainers there... to train their trainers, which is [an] ongoing support function that is actually moving in the right direction," adding that some of the US troops were special forces and some were general purpose troops
http://dailytimes.com.pk/ "A New [ aka U.S.] Voice for Pakistan" www.burbankdigest.com/node/233 www.voltairenet.org/article161322.html

Obama's 'secret war': U.S. soldiers killed inside Pakistan
In Pakistan and in Yemen, and perhaps even more quietly elsewhere – in the failed state of Somalia, for example – small cadres of special operations soldiers and near-silent unmanned aircraft capable of assassinations in the middle of the night have taken the fight against "Islamic extremists" to new levels and new places.
http://snipurl.com/ua401 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obamas-secret-war-us-soldiers-...

special forces killers killed
US presence in Pakistan exposed
...The initial reports had it that "three westerners" were among the ten people killed. First, officials said they were journalists, then aid workers.... they were US soldiers. Officially, there are no US troops stationed in Pakistan. ...according to US embassy statement: "...the US troops killed in the attack were training FC [Frontier Corps] soldiers on a request by the Pakistani government."

Pakistan: Killed Americans were part of 100-strong commando unit
By Amir Mir
...According to well informed diplomatic circles in Islamabad, the slain US soldiers were part of a 100-member strong special American military training unit which was dispatched to Pakistan in 2008 to raise a 1,000-member strong well-trained paramilitary commando unit which could conduct guerrilla operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban militants active in the Pak-Afghan tribal belt and involved in cross-border ambushes against the US-led allied forces stationed in Afghanistan.... www.uruknet.info?p=62932 thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27048

Blackwater in Pakistan
By Asif Haroon Raja
There is mounting evidence that Pentagon and CIA war against Pakistan population involves death squads, disappearances and torture. These infamous practices were employed in Vietnam and Al Salvador. One of the chief executives of Blackwater Robert Richer was head of CIA’s Near East and South Asia from1999 to 2004 and ran clandestine operations throughout Middle East and South Asia. Gen Petraeus in August 2009 announced plans to launch an intelligence training centre in coordination with others to train military officers, covert agents and analysts who agree to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan for up to a decade. In the same month, it was announced that Pentagon was reassigning its 3rd Special Forces Group presently deployed in Africa and Caribbean to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan... www.asiantribune.com/news/2010/02/07/grave-concerns-over-presence-blackw... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=62998

US verdict sparks Pakistan protests
Thousands of Pakistanis staged rallies against the conviction of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist found guilty of trying to kill American servicemen in Afghanistan.... branded "Lady Qaeda" by some US press...She was convicted in a New York court on Wednesday. Siddiqui's relatives condemned the verdict, with Fauzia Siddiqui, her sister, saying the verdict had "rejuvenated" the family."And we're proud to be related to her," she said, speaking from the Pakistani city of Karachi."America's justice system, the establishment, the war on terror, the fraud of the war on terror, all of those things have shown their own ugly faces."
The AFP news agency quoted Ismat Siddiqui, Aafia's mother, who lives in Karachi, as saying the family had been braced for the verdict but would continue to work for her release."I did not expect anything better from an American court. We were ready for the shock and will continue our struggle to get her released," [...]

US Court Rules Pakistani Woman Guilty of Attempted Murder
By Al Jazeera & Saeed Qureshi
Prosecutors accuse Aafia Siddiqui of firing at her interrogators but her lawyers say there was no forensic evidence the shooting took place.

US frame-up of Aafia Siddiqui begins to unravel
Pakistani victim of rendition and torture
By Ali Ismail
February 1, 2010 - Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui went on trial in a federal courtroom in New York City on January 19, charged with the attempted murder of US personnel in Afghanistan’s Ghazni Province in 2008. The case against Dr. Siddiqui, 37, is rapidly unraveling due to lack of evidence and discordant testimony from witnesses. It is becoming increasingly evident that the charges amount to a frame-up that has been staged to cover up the fact that Siddiqui, along with her eldest son, had been held without charges in the US military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 where they were subjected to torture. Two of Dr. Siddiqui’s younger children are still missing... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=62827