FOX/MURDOCH/ISRAELI POLICY TO KEEP US IN AFGHANISTAN

NOT VERY "PRO AMERICAN"

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Fox News is using retired military officers surrounded by uniformed active duty troops in an attempt to derail debate on disengagement in Afghanistan.  After 8 years, the US is heading the same way Russia did, the more troops we send, the more die.  Absolutely nothing has been accomplished in 8 years in Afghanistan other than to start a major war in Pakistan too.  I understand Fox News.  They are controlled by the powerful Israeli spokeman, Rupert Murdoch.  Israel wants this war to go on forever.  Though Murdoch now is an American citizen, it doesn't seem to have "taken."

What is good for Israel isn't always good for the US.  Active duty military who try to make their own foreign policy are not just total morons but are in violation of a number of laws.  They are technically at war with the United States of America.  If it is necessary for veterans to take up weapons to fight against members of our military who are part of an insurrection run by a foreign power, tell me where to sign up.

TONITE, TENS OF THOUSANDS WILL ENTER BATTLE ON OUR SIDE

FEW AMERICANS WILL EVER KNOW

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Half way around the world, Americans sit out another night facing the uncertainty of life and death.  Their enemy has survived and defeated some of the world's greatest armies.  A war 8 years old is centered in some of the roughest terrain on Earth, the border regions of Afghanistan and the Pakistan.  The only major force helping America in its war against the loose confederation of Taliban warlords, Al Qaeda, Chechen fighters and Arab extremists is Pakistan, a country ignored and often reviled by Americans.

By Marvi Memon

Dear Secretary Clinton,

Whilst the message from you and your government is that of peace and friendship, the Kerry Lugar Bill passed by your legislative branch has been one of the main stumbling blocks in this mission. The assumption that Pakistanis have misunderstood the bill is equally faulty. Pakistanis have read the bill and understood your intent to micromanage Pakistan, to curtail Pakistan's nuclear expansion program and to direct the war against extremism in Pakistan from White House.

By Brigadier Asif Haroon Raja

FATA consisting of seven tribal agencies is backward and poverty stricken with little means of employment. The tribesmen are excellent fighters, revengeful, hospitable, fiercely independent, religious and proud of their traditions. They have all along remained loyal to Pakistan and defended western border without any assistance from Pakistan army.

After 1947, South Waziristan Agency (SWA) was penetrated for the first time by regular troops in 2002 to flush out foreigners under intense pressure from Bush Administration. It ignited fire of militancy which kept spreading. After fighting the Waziris under Nek Muhammad and signing Shakai peace deal with him, troops entered Mehsud area within SWA in 2004.

Tom Engelhardt calls Afghanistan as a bail-out state. Juan Cole notes, "Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission-- that is an absurd proposition."

Matt Rothschild points out, "Abdullah’s withdrawal from the presidential runoff leaves Hamid Karzai in power but without legitimacy."

We're even thinking about escalation?

By Jeff Huber at-Largely

President Obama met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday Oct. 30 for another skull session on Afghanistan. Another reason not to escalate: long term consequences on personnel and equipment of land warfare services that have been strained by eight years of dual wars.

Obama has not made any decisions regarding Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops, and it is unlikely he will before he leaves Monday on a weeklong tour of Asia. So we’re safe for another week, anyway.

By Ann Scott Tyson The Washington Post

More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

The dramatic increase in amputees and other seriously injured service members comes as October marks the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Expanded military operations, a near-doubling of the number of troops since the beginning of the year and a Taliban offensive that has included a proliferation of roadside bombings have led to the great increase in casualties.

As security worsens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is clear that al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies outwitted President George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers by tying down U.S. forces in Iraq for five years while the Islamic militants rebuilt their forces for the war on their “central front.”

The question remains whether al-Qaeda can outwit President Obama whose forthcoming decision on Afghanistan and Pakistan is the focus of a massive behind-the-scenes political drama.

WHY ARE THERE NO TALKS?

IS IT YOU, IS IT US?

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

7 years of war and there are no discussions, no peace initiatives, nothing.  Is this possible?  Nobody even remembers why we are fighting each other.  Is someone saying we have no basis for even sitting down and talking to each other like human beings?  Men of good will, soldiers, veterans, warriors demand that the path be opened to bring this war to an end and allow the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan to live in peace and security and for America and her allies to be allowed to disengage from this war in a manner consistent with real values of the American people, values not of governments.

If someone is willing to sit down and state that all of us are killing each other over religion, culture, oil and gas, opium or, more likely, because we are all being manipulated into senseless self destruction, then let that outpouring of truth begin.  If we have become vermin and predators, and are no longer men, then let us have the honesty to admit it.

A leading national cheerleader for escalation in Afghanistan is Sussex, Wisconsin native Thomas Tradewell, Veterans of Foreign Wars' (VFW) National Commander.

Tradewell is on the bleeding edge of public criticism that our military is leveling against its democratic commander-in-chief and Obama's deliberation of the major foreign policy decision on Afghanistan and Pakistan that is coming soon.

Why does this guy working for a veterans' service organization refrain from saying word one about the bullshit wars politicians make, and the middle-finger salute given to our veterans by the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs? Tell these guys that their emblems and conventions don't mean much if they turn their backs on the grunts getting screwed.

(Editor's note: This op-ed from the NYT is an intriguing look at our situation in Afghanistan. Before we leap into deeper water it might be a good idea to also get the opinions of Alexander and Genghis Khan. Bob Higgins)

Victor Sebestyen The New York Times

THE highly decorated general sat opposite his commander in chief and explained the problems his army faced fighting in the hills around Kabul: “There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” he said. “Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centers, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize.

By Jeff Huber at-Largely

“I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan.” Matthew Hoh

Foreign Service Officer Matthew Hoh’s resignation letter is a stunning refutation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s proposal to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Hoh, a former Marine officer who fought in Iraq, was a senior civilian official in Zabul Afghanistan.

The Associated Press has today released an article on the ratio of allied troops and security personnel to active Taliban in Afghanistan.  It is already somewhere between 12 to 1 or 5 to 1 allied advantage, depending on whom is calculating the figure.  The story is here.

I am left with a sinking feeling in my stomach.  As you read this article you realize how much of a numbers game this thing is.  And all of the NATO and U.S. experts that were interviewed disagree with each other as to what is needed here to reduce the profile of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Why do I not feel good about this?

Why is nobody playing this straight?  What is the real story with the number of troops needed here?  Do you think it is possible for us to get that number?

By Joshua Partlow -----KABUL - A series of powerful bombs killed eight American soldiers and an interpreter in southern Afghanistan Tuesday morning, according to U.S. military officials. The attacks, which came one day after 14 Americans died in two helicopter crashes here, made October the deadliest month for the U.S. military of the eight-year war.

By Leo Michel and Robert Hunter Los Angeles Times

'There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies," observed Winston Churchill in 1945, "and that is fighting without them." It's a truth worth recalling as the Obama administration nears crucial decisions on Afghanistan.

American commentators often shortchange allied efforts in Afghanistan, ignoring the facts and insulting our friends. The European allies and Canada provide about half of the 73,000 troops in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, and they account for nearly 40% of Western combat deaths since 2001. Estonia, Denmark, Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and Latvia have lost more soldiers per capita than has the United States.

Here is an article from today's New York Times on Afghanistan, from the point of view of the German Army soldiers who are fighting there.  It is very insightful and gives a non-American soldier's view of the war.  The German people are quickly tiring of this war.  Imagine that.

There is an article here from the Times outlining the strains on Pakistani-American relations since the U.S. has started to insist that Pakistan eradicate Taliban fighters in Pakistan who cross the border into Afghanistan without challenge.  There is always two sides to every coin, isn't there?

Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post has posted an article this morning concerning a respected U.S. Foreign Service Officer, a former combat marine with Iraq experience, who has resigned from the State Department and his posting in Afghanistan.  He no longer believes we have a real purpose in Afghanistan that he can support.  The article is here and is entitled "U.S. Official resigns over Afghan War - Foreign Service Officer and former Marine Captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting"

I never knew.  Not even for a minute. 

Finally!  The Congress is coming to its senses and finding the cahonies to stand up to the Pentagon, the war industry captains and the energy cartels.  Mary Beth Sheridan of the Washington Post reports tonight that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has rejected troop increases in Afghanistan.

"May the saints be praised!" as my grandmother would have said.  She has been dead for many years now but I can hear her brogue very clearly right now.

Reason is coming back into vogue in American political decision making matrices.  The story is here.

Daniel Ellsberg is the legendary US military analyst employed by the RAND Corp who precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when, risking his liberty and defying the government, he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of US government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to the New York Times and 17 other newspapers. The Pentagon Papers reveals the government lied to our troops, a betrayal leading to the downfall of two US presidents.

This betrayal, as readers and contributors of Veterans Today know, continues. Our troops possess qualities making them the best of America as opposed to the warmakers and chickenhawks in the Pentagon and the think tanks of Washington D.C. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars are lies sustained by lapdogs and kiss-asses. 

Chopper crashes killed 14 Americans in Afghanistan on Monday, ratcheting up pressure on President Obama to decide on a surge. Leslie H. Gelb reports Obama's ready to act—but not even his advisers know what he'll do. Nor do the American people, the back-seat drivers of American policy.

Perhaps Obama will decide to escalate but forgo tax cuts for the super-rich. Change we can hope for?

By Sajjad Shaukat

Since October 17, this year when Pakistan’s armed forces started the military operation, “Rah-i-Nijat” (Path to Deliverance), they have been rapidly achieving successes by destroying the strongholds of the Waziristan-based militants. In this regard, the Chief of the Inter-Services Public Relations, Maj-Gen. Athar Abbas indicated that within a few days, at least 137 militants have been killed and 18 soldiers have been martyred during the operation, while army troops also occupied the house of Hakimullah Mehsud, the Chief of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). But it is more alarming development against our country that scores of security check posts in Afghanistan side of Pak-Afghan border have been removed by the US commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal who leads NATO forces in Afghanistan.

 Gregg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post have posted an article in that paper today explaining that in the past month the White House had ordered that an Afghan War war-game be played out with various troop level scenarios in place.  Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, played in the game.  Here is a quote from an anonymous participant.

"We were running out the options and trying to understand the implications from many different perspectives, including the enemy and the Afghan people," said a senior military official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the classified game."