10/7/10 Nine Years of Terror: US Unable to Snatch Defeat from Afghanistan National Resistance


Afghanistan: General James Jones NATO's Top General Says Taliban Defeated
August 13, 2004
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty

Afghan resistance statement on the Ninth Anniversary of American Invasion of Afghanistan
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
October 7, 2010 - Nine years ago, the brutal Americans attacked Afghanistan in contradiction of all human and moral norms.. in the name of furthering the Crusade. At the outset, no one believed the Afghans, who had already passed through hardships of long wars, would be able to confront the attack launched by the most arrogant and highly-trained forces of the 21st century. Based on these predictions, former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, wallowing in wishful delusions due to arrogance, announced the end of the American military operations after six months of the invasion... But today, 9 years after that announcement, the strongholds of Jihad and resistance against the invading Americans and their allies are strong as ever...the invading Americans and coalition allies have put to use all their military and economic capability to maintain their brutal occupation over Afghanistan and bring it to a successful end. Even they implemented different strategies; appointed the most sophisticated and veteran generals and launched various conspiracies with the help of their surrogates to stymie popular resistance but, all that notwithstanding, we can make a cursory comparison regarding the achievements of both sides of the wars on this occasion of the ninth anniversary of the Americans invasion of Afghanistan...now every one can predict the Americans and their allies chance of success in Afghanistan...American rulers: have mercy on your people by immediately pulling out of Afghanistan...Afghans consider every sacrifice and defense as a pride, even now after nine years of continuous Jihad and resistance. However, the American people will not have the patience to see corpses of their dead soldiers who have lost their lives for the protection of the American capitalists.

Amin's important historical account fails to take into account the most important fact: the peoples' resistance is political, it is our struggle too, directed against and defeating our common enemy, even when temporarily misled by religion ...
Samir Amin
Samir Amin is director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal. http://www.nawaat.org/portail/2008/05/14/political-islam-in-the-service-... ...

...The modernist experiments, from enlightened despotism to radical national populism, were not products of chance. Powerful movements that were dominant in the middle classes created them. In this way, these classes expressed their will to be viewed as fully-fledged partners in modern globalization. These projects, which can be described as national bourgeois, were modernist, secularizing and potential carriers of democratic developments. But precisely because these projects conflicted with the interests of dominant imperialism, the latter fought them relentlessly and systematically mobilized declining obscurantist forces for this purpose.

The history of the Muslim Brotherhood is well known. It was literally created in the 1920s by the British and the monarchy to block the path of the democratic and secular Wafd. Their mass return from their Saudi refuge after Nasser’s death, organized by the CIA and Sadat, is also well known. We are all acquainted with the history of the Taliban, formed by the CIA in Pakistan to fight the “communists” who had opened the schools to everyone, boys and girls. It is even well known that the Israelis supported Hamas at the beginning in order to weaken the secular and democratic currents of the Palestinian resistance.

Political Islam would have had much more difficulty in moving out from the borders of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan without the continual, powerful, and resolute support of the United States. Saudi Arabian society had not even begun its move out of tradition when petroleum was discovered under its soil. The alliance between imperialism and the traditional ruling class, sealed immediately, was concluded between the two partners and gave a new lease on life to Wahabi political Islam....It is, thus, easy to understand the initiative taken by the United States to break the united front of Asian and African states set up at Bandung (1955) by creating an “Islamic Conference,” immediately promoted (from 1957) by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Political Islam penetrated into the region by this means.
The least of the conclusions that should be drawn from the observations made here is that political Islam is not the spontaneous result of the assertion of authentic religious convictions by the peoples concerned. Political Islam was constructed by the systematic action of imperialism, supported, of course, by obscurantist reactionary forces and subservient comprador classes. That this state of affairs is also the responsibility of left forces that neither saw nor knew how to deal with the challenge remains indisputable.

Questions Relative to the Front Line Countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Iran)
The project of the United States, supported to varying degrees by their subaltern allies in Europe and Japan, is to establish military control over the entire planet. With this prospect in mind, the Middle East was chosen as the “first strike” region for four reasons: (1) it holds the most abundant petroleum resources in the world and its direct control by the armed forces of the United States would give Washington a privileged position, placing its allies—Europe and Japan—and rivals in an uncomfortable position of dependence for their energy supplies; (2) it is located at the crossroads of the Old World and makes it easier to put in place a permanent military threat against China, India, and Russia; (3) the region is experiencing a moment of weakness and confusion that allows the aggressor to be assured of an easy victory, at least for the moment; and (4) Israel’s presence in the region, Washington’s unconditional ally. This aggression has placed the countries and nations located on the front line (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Iran) in the particular situation of being destroyed (the first three) or threatened with destruction (Iran).

Afghanistan experienced the best period in its modern history during the so-called communist republic....The propaganda conveyed by the Western media as well as by political Islam presented this experiment as communist and atheist totalitarianism rejected by the Afghan people. In reality, the regime was far from being unpopular, much like Ataturk in his time.
The fact that the leaders of this experiment, in both of the major factions (Khalq and Parcham), were self-described as communists is not surprising. The model of the progress accomplished by the neighboring peoples of Soviet Central Asia (despite everything that has been said on the subject and despite the autocratic practices of the system) in comparison with the ongoing social disasters of British imperialist management in other neighboring countries (India and Pakistan included) had the effect, here as in many other countries of the region, of encouraging patriots to assess the full extent of the obstacle formed by imperialism to any attempt at modernization. The invitation extended by one faction to the Soviets to intervene in order to rid themselves of the others certainly had a negative effect and mortgaged the possibilities of the modernist national populist project.
The United States in particular and its allies of the Triad in general have always been tenacious opponents of the Afghan modernizers, communists or not. It is they who mobilized the obscurantist forces of Pakistan-style political Islam (the Taliban) and the warlords (the tribal leaders successfully neutralized by the so-called communist regime), and they who trained and armed them.

There is only one solution to the Afghan problem: all foreign forces should leave the country and all powers should be forced to refrain from financing and arming their allies. To those who are well-intended and express their fear that the Afghan people will then tolerate the dictatorship of the Taliban (or the warlords), I would respond that the foreign presence has been up until now and remains the best support for this dictatorship! The Afghan people had been moving in another direction—potentially the best possible—at a time when the West was forced to take less interest in its affairs. To the enlightened despotism of “communists,” the civilized West has always preferred obscurantist despotism, infinitely less dangerous for its interests!

The resistance America calls 'al-qaeda': Bury 'Al-Qaeda' Ghost
By Iftekhar A. Khan, April 9, 2009
"Information Clearing House" -- Those prophesying that Barack Obama in many ways would be similar to his predecessor were right on the spot if his recent speech on Afghanistan is to guide us. He has incessantly talked about 9/11 and Al-Qaeda as indeed did his predecessor, George Bush and his neocon cabal. Obama's proposed surge in troops to bolster demoralised NATO forces in Afghanistan shows his determination to eliminate Al-Qaeda and Taliban resistance. Bush invented Al-Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11 and Obama has decided to stick to it with the only difference that he has discarded the use of the term War On Terror....Those resisting the presence of foreign forces on their soil are its followers. Call them Al-Qaeda, nationalists, or sons of the soil...Millions follow sure no such thing as Al-Qaeda exists or ever existed.... sure that the Al-Qaeda ghost had no role in 9/11 and destruction of Twin Towers because it was an inside job. ..To claim through corporate media that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the superpower is an unqualified fraud in history. Is not the similarity between gutting of the Reichstag in Germany before invading Europe and destruction of Twin Towers in the US before invading Afghanistan striking? Many in Europe have called Bush 21st century's Hitler. Obama would do well to distance himself from that image by reassessing his Afpak strategy.
Wrapping defeat in euphemism, Bush in his last year in office said: "We are not winning the war in Afghanistan." Obama has inherited Bush's losing war. Instead of reappraising the past strategy to determine the causes of failure, he has decided to inject more troops. Quite erroneously, he thinks troop surge will help NATO forces to gain control, without realising that it will in fact cause an upsurge in resistance. Troops can never control popular uprising of the people. Therefore, army action in Fata and Swat has not been able to put down the resistance... which the Americans prefer to call Al-Qaeda....
The writer is a freelance columnist - E-mail: pinecity@gmail.com This article was first published at The Nation, Pakistan

The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan
May 11, 2009 By George Friedman, Stratfor
...Ultimately, Petraeus is charging that Obama and Gates are missing the chance to repeat what was done in Iraq, while Obama and Gates are afraid Petraeus is confusing success in Iraq with a universal counterinsurgency model. To put it differently, they feel that while Petraeus benefited from fortuitous circumstances in Iraq, he quickly could find himself hopelessly bogged down in Afghanistan. The Pentagon on May 11 announced that U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. David McKiernan would be replaced, less than a year after he took over, with Lt. Gen. Stan McChrystal. McKiernan’s removal could pave the way for a broader reshuffling of Afghan strategy by the Obama administration.
The most important issues concern the extent to which Obama wants to stake his presidency on Petraeus’ vision in Afghanistan, and how important Afghanistan is to U.S. grand strategy. Petraeus has conceded that al Qaeda is in Pakistan. Getting the group out of Pakistan requires surgical strikes. Occupation and regime change in Pakistan are way beyond American abilities. The question of what the United States expects to win in Afghanistan — assuming it can win anything there — remains...

all the information war in the world will not save US imperialism
Pentagon sets sights on public opinion
May 2, 2009
Obama: We Need To Bail Out Newspapers Or Blogs Will Run The World and that would be a threat to democracy

US to launch media war in AFPAK
August 22nd, 2009
According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, will direct the effort within the State Department, which will focus on the use of cell phones, FM radio and video...According to Holbrooke, the United States is losing the information war in Afghanistan and Pakistan as far as the Taliban is concerned... establishing a new unit for countering militant propaganda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in an effort to win the war of ideas against Islamist extremists.Local journalists are to be trained at State Department expense (with a proposed budget of 150 million dollars) to attack and denigrate militants and their messages.

September 11, 2009 Obama Vows to Never Stop Pursuing al-Qaeda

September 11, 2009 US Commander McChrystal: No Sign of al-Qaeda Presence in Afghanistan

CIA Adding Bases in Afghanistan as Taliban Gains, Panetta Says
By Jeff Bliss
Sept.19 2009 (Bloomberg) -- The growing strength of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan prompted the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to establish more bases there, the agency’s director said. The extra CIA operatives are supporting the 17,000 additional troops President Barack Obama authorized soon after taking office this year, as well as the civilian government employees helping to rebuild the country after years of war, CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an interview. “We are increasing our presence” because the Taliban’s “capabilities have improved a great deal” in Afghanistan, he said....
Admiral Michael Mullen chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the security situation in Afghanistan is “serious” and “deteriorating.” He told lawmakers on Sept. 15 that it’s likely more troops will be needed to defeat the Taliban. The CIA buildup, which Panetta said is “going on as we speak,” reflects how fast the insurgency is gaining ground.
Panetta said he thought the U.S. can be successful by relying on the experience of U.S. and NATO troops in the region and the counterinsurgency tactics championed by Army General Stanley McChrystal commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the country. While the Taliban “are clearly increasing their threat, we at the same time are learning a lot more about how we deal with them,” he said. “That gives me at least some hope that we can direct this in the right way.”
McChrystal has submitted his assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan and will also offer an analysis of how many additional U.S. forces may be needed. As American public opinion becomes more wary of the war, administration officials are under pressure to limit requests for more troops.
Al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan before the U.S. invasion to topple the Taliban following the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., is seeking other havens. They and the Taliban set up bases in neighboring Pakistan’s northwestern tribal region, drawing missile attacks from CIA-directed Predator drones. “Our operations in Pakistan, directed at al-Qaeda, have been very successful in disrupting al-Qaeda as far as their operations and their planning,” Panetta said.

The Myth of Talibanistan
By Pepe Escobar
May 04, 2009 "Asia Times" -- Apocalypse Now. Run for cover....that's mythical al-Qaeda's privileged territory...The myth of Talibanistan is a diversion, a cog in the slow-moving regional big wheel - which in itself is part of the new great game in Eurasia. During a first stage - let's call it the branding of evil - Washington think-tanks and corporate media hammered non-stop on the "threat of al-Qaeda"... FATA was branded as terrorist central - the most dangerous place in the world where "the terrorists" and an army of suicide bombers were trained and unleashed into Afghanistan to kill the "liberators" of US/NATO.In the second stage, the new Obama administration accelerated the Predator "hell from above" drone war over Pashtun peasants. Drones can incinerate any single Pashtun wedding in sight. But international bogeymen... Osama, Baitullah, Mullah Omar ...star players in the new OCO (overseas contingency operations), formerly GWOT ("global war on terror"), of course deserve star treatment....Now the stage where soon over 100,000-strong US/NATO troops are depicted as the true liberators of the poor in Af-Pak (and not the "evil" Taliban) - an essential ploy in the new narrative to legitimize Obama's Af-Pak surge....

Barack Obama Accused of Exaggerating Terror Threat for Political Gain
• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'
By Simon Tisdall and Richard Norton-Taylor October 07, 2010 The Guardian
A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have "set the country on fire..." The sharp rise in US unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas, coupled with several cross-border raids by American helicopter gunships that culminated in the killing of two Frontier Corps soldiers last week, destabilising Pakistan Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain said "would not bring about stability in Afghanistan, which is presumably the primary objective of the American and Nato forces."....Hasan, a veteran diplomat close to Pakistan's president, suggested the Obama administration was reacting to pressure to demonstrate that his Afghan war strategy and this year's troop surge, unpopular with the American public...was playing politics with the terror threat before next month's mid-term congressional elections... ..Dismissing claims of a developed, co-ordinated plot aimed at Britain, France and Germany, European intelligence officials pointed the finger at the US, and specifically at the White House. "To stitch together [the terror plot claims] in a seamless narrative is nonsensical," said one well-placed official...

By making it clear US drone strikes were pre-emptive, and were not in any way combating an imminent threat, European officials raised fresh questions – this time directly involving a British national – about the legality of the attacks, which could be viewed as assassinations. They said Washington was the "driver" behind claims about a series of "commando-style" plots and that the CIA – perhaps because it was worried about provoking unwelcome attention to its drone strikes – was also extremely annoyed by the publicity given to them. The plot claims, which western intelligence agencies were aware of for months, were leaked last week to the American media.
They were followed by a spate of what security and intelligence officials said were exaggerated claims in the British media, a US state department warning to American citizens to be vigilant when visiting Britain, France, and Germany, a "tit for tat" warning by France to its citizens visiting the UK, and alerts issued by the Swedish and Japanese governments.
Thomas de Maizière, Germany's interior minister, publicly expressed his scepticism about the US terror warning, saying he saw no sign of an imminent attack on Germany. He described the danger to Germany as "hypothetical"...
A US official said: "Our allies have been briefed on the nature of the threat and the intelligence that led to the travel alert and everyone understands this cannot be taken lightly."To try to ascribe any political motivation is misguided and irresponsible."

European politicians deny US claims of terror threat
By Stefan Steinberg IMEMC, October 7, 2010
A number of leading European politicians have publicly denied recent US claims of an imminent threat of terrorist attack somewhere in Europe.
Last Sunday, the US State Department issued a vague statement warning American citizens in Europe of the danger of attacks by terrorist organisations linked to Al Qaeda... media outlets named Britain, Germany and France as "high threat" targets for terrorist attacks, even specifying popular tourist attractions...
Other leading European politicians, however, have gone on record denying the US State Department claims. At a meeting held by the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation on Tuesday (6 October) European Union Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding denied there was any imminent threat of terror attacks in Europe: "On the terror alert in the US, some European ministers have given the answer already—they have said there is nothing new, and the threats have been on the table for several years." ... "European ministers" refer to comments made by the German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, who warned in an official government statement Monday against alarmism following the US terror alert. "To summarize, there are currently no concrete indications of imminent attacks in Germany."...unequivocally refuting the claims made by the US State Department...
The source of the latest US terror claims is alleged to be the confession made by a 36-year-old German national captured by NATO forces in July in Afghanistan, Ahmed Sidiqi, being held and interrogated at the US military’s Bagram air base near Kabul. Based on previous US practice Sidiqi has very likely been tortured. A number of security experts declared... the information received from Sidiqi provides no evidence of any concrete measures linked to terrorist action...A German official also allowed access to Sidiqi reported to the German interior ministry there were no grounds for believing a terror attack was imminent. Some German media commentaries also played down the possibility of a terrorist attack in Europe, noting that such US-led terror scares primarily serve a domestic purpose.
The most recent denial of an imminent terror danger by the German interior minister on Wednesday follows reports that a number of German citizens had been killed in a new US drone attack carried out on Monday. According to media reports. a number of Germans died in an attack carried out by a US drone on a hideout of Islamist militants located in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan. The initial reports on the deaths of German citizens were highly contradictory, with two leading news agencies (Reuters and DPA) reporting eight German casualties, while two other agencies (Associated Press and AFP) referred to five German victims. The reports also gave contradictory versions regarding the nationality of the other victims of the attack.
Conflicting information also emerged regarding the target of the attack. While most reports declared that the target of the drone was a private house, Reuters reported that the building which was hit and completely demolished was a mosque. One local resident had told the news agency that people had gathered for prayer in the mosque when the missile struck. The site of the impact was then apparently cordoned off by insurgents.
Having dismissed US claims of an imminent terror danger in Europe the German Interior Minister has also gone on record to question the US version of Monday’s drone attack. De Maizière told Deutschlandfunk on Wednesday: "What really surprises me is that this attack by an unmanned drone took place apparently the day before yesterday in an inaccessible region, and nevertheless identity documents were found". In the same interview, he went on to declare that the possibility of a terror attack in Germany remained "hypothetical".
De Maizière, a conservative politician, (like Reding), is a leading member of the German government, which has consistently supported the US war of aggression in Afghanistan... refutations of the latest US terror scare point to growing tensions between the transatlantic partners...Now US is seeking to justify their intensified drone bombing campaign in Pakistan by claiming they are working to thwart a terror strike in Europe. Those countries which sign up to the US terror campaign for their own domestic purposes—such as Britain and France—automatically lend their support to the US military expansion into Pakistan... Reding and de Maizière refuting the US terror scare campaign indicate that some sections of the European bourgeoisie are increasingly reluctant to blindly follow the US in a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

US's 'Arc of Instability' Just Gets Bigger
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times
The New Great Game is not only focused on the face-off between the United States and strategic competitors Russia and China - with Pipelineistan as a defining element. The full spectrum dominance doctrine requires the control of the Pentagon-coined "arc of instability" from the Horn of Africa to western China. The cover story is the former "global war on terror", now "overseas contingency operations" [editor: now revised back to GWOT?] under the management of President Barack Obama's administration.
Most of all, the underlying logic remains divide and rule. As for the divide, Beijing would call it, without a trace of irony, "splittist". Split up Iraq - blocking China's access to Iraqi oil. Split up Pakistan - with an independent Balochistan preventing China from accessing the strategic port of Gwadar there. Split up Afghanistan - with an independent Pashtunistan allowing the building of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline bypassing Russia. Split up Iran - by financing subversion in Khuzestan and Sistan-Balochistan. And why not split up Bolivia (as was attempted last year) to the benefit of US energy giants. Call it the (splitting) Kosovo model. Kosovo, incidentally, is known as the Colombia of the Balkans. What Washington calls the "Western hemisphere" is a sub-section of the New Great Game. The linkage between the recent military coup in Honduras, the return of the living dead - that is, the resurrection of the US Navy's Fourth Fleet in July 2008 - and now the turbo-charging of seven US military bases in Colombia is not to be blamed merely on continuity from president George W Bush to Obama. Not really. This is all about the internal logic of Full Spectrum Dominance....

PSYOPS: "The Mighty Wurlitzer" Message Machine
Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II,
by Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Retired)

psyops or not, it reveals how desperate US is to snatch defeat from the national resistance
...Kabul and the Haqqanis have denied any contacts....
US and Afghan governments make contact with Haqqani insurgents
Exclusive: US dealing with Haqqani clan – which has close ties to al-Qaida – through Western intermediary
Julian Borger and Declan Walsh http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/06/us-afghan-government-contact...
Both the Afghan and US governments have recently made contact with the most fearsome insurgent group [ed: usually referred by US as most brutal terrorists]in Afghanistan, the Haqqani network, the Guardian has learned. A senior western official said the US now considers the Haqqani network to be more powerful than the Quetta Shura, the 15-man leadership council headed by the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar... "Now the military threat comes from the Haqqanis," the official said...
The indirect contacts with the Americans have been made through a non-governmental western intermediary, who has met Haqqani representatives in Pakistan several times in the past 18 months, and has conveyed messages to and fro. Different diplomatic sources gave different accounts of the Haqqanis' readiness to take part in a preliminary dialogue.. the Haqqanis have denied any contacts.... In any future talks the critical demand would be for the Haqqanis to sever ties to al-Qaida, whose leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are believed to be sheltering in the caves of North Waziristan. A Pakistani official said yesterday that he believed the group was ready to make that step. "This is the end of the road for al-Qaida in Waziristan," the official said.