Messages In This Digest (11 Messages)
- 1.
- 2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World From: Rick Rozoff
- 2.
- Yemen: La Guerra Del Pentagono Nella Penisola Araba From: Rick Rozoff
- 3.
- Twice As High: U.S. Afghan Death Toll Greater Than Iraq's For First From: Rick Rozoff
- 4.
- "Smart power" and "bear traps" in the Hindu Kush From: linguisticresearch
- 5.
- Venezuela Accuses Netherlands Of Assisting U.S. Attack Plans From: Rick Rozoff
- 6.
- Western troops accused of executing Afghan civilians, including chil From: Romi Elnagar
- 7.
- Swedes, Finn, Korean Among NATO Afghan Fatalities From: Rick Rozoff
- 8.
- Venezuela Warns Against U.S. Incursions From Dutch Islands From: Rick Rozoff
- 9.
- Morocco: U.S. Africa Command Chief Strengthens Military Ties From: Rick Rozoff
- 10.
- Record U.S. Aid Goes For Weapons From: Rick Rozoff
- 11.
- U.S. Blitz Continues To Claim Lives In Pakistan From: Rick Rozoff
Messages
- 1.
-
2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:16 am (PST)
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/2010-u-s-to-wage-war-throughout-the-world
Stop NATO
December 31, 2009
2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World
Rick Rozoff
January 1 will usher in the last year of the first decade of a new millennium and ten consecutive years of the United States conducting war in the Greater Middle East.
Beginning with the October 7, 2001 missile and bomb attacks on Afghanistan, American combat operations abroad have not ceased for a year, a month, a week or a day in the 21st century.
The Afghan war, the U.S.'s first air and ground conflict in Asia since the disastrous wars in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960s and early 1970s and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's first land war and Asian campaign, began during the end of the 2001 war in Macedonia launched from NATO-occupied Kosovo, one in which the role of U.S. military personnel is still to be properly exposed [1] and addressed and which led to the displacement of almost 10 percent of the nation's population.
In the first case Washington invaded a nation in the name of combating terrorism; in the second it abetted cross-border terrorism. Similarly, in 1991 the U.S. and its Western allies attacked Iraqi forces in Kuwait and launched devastating and deadly cruise missile attacks and bombing sorties inside Iraq in the name of preserving the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait, and in 1999 waged a 78-day bombing assault against Yugoslavia to override and fatally undermine the principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty in the name of the casus belli of the day, so-called humanitarian intervention.
Two years later humanitarian war, as abhorrent an oxymoron as the world has ever witnessed, gave way to the global war on terror(ism), with the U.S. and its NATO allies again reversing course but continuing to wage wars of aggression and "wars of opportunity" as they saw fit, contradictions and logic, precedents and international law notwithstanding.
Several never fully acknowledged counterinsurgency campaigns, some ongoing - Colombia - and some new - Yemen - later, the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003 with a "coalition of the willing" comprised mainly of Eastern European NATO candidate nations (now almost all full members of the world's only military bloc as a result of their service).
The Pentagon has also deployed special forces and other troops to the Philippines and launched naval, helicopter and missile attacks inside Somalia as well as assisting the Ethiopian invasion of that nation in 2006. Washington also arms, trains and supports the armed forces of Djibouti in their border war with Eritrea. In fact Djibouti hosts the U.S.'s only permanent military installation in Africa to date [2], Camp Lemonier, a United States Naval Expeditionary Base and home to the Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), placed under the new U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) when it was launched on October 1, 2008. The area of responsibility of the Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa takes in the nations of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Yemen and as "areas of interest" the Comoros, Mauritius and Madagascar.
That is, much of the western shores of the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, among the most geostrategically important parts of the world. [3]
U.S. troops, aerial drones, warships, planes and helicopters are active throughout that vast tract of land and water.
With senator and once almost vice president Joseph Lieberman's threat on December 27 that "Yemen will be tomorrow's war" [4] and former Southern Command chief and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Wesley Clark's two days later that "Maybe we need to put some boots on the ground there," [5] it is evident that America's new war for the new year has already been identified. In fact in mid-December U.S. warplanes participated in the bombing of a village in northern Yemen that cost the lives of 120 civilians as well as wounding 44 more [6] and a week later "A US fighter jet...carried out multiple airstrikes on the home of a senior official in Yemen's northern rugged province of Sa'ada...." [7]
The pretext for undertaking a war in Yemen in earnest is currently the serio-comic "attempted terrorist attack" by a young Nigerian national on a passenger airliner outside of Detroit on Christmas Day. The deadly U.S. bombing of the Yemeni village mentioned above occurred ten days earlier and moreover was in the north of the nation, although Washington claims al-Qaeda cells are operating in the other end of the country. [8]
Asia, Africa and the Middle East are not the only battlegrounds where the Pentagon is active. On October 30 of 2009 the U.S. signed an agreement with the government of Colombia to acquire the essentially unlimited and unrestricted use of seven new military bases in the South American nation, including sites within immediate striking distance of both Venezuela and Ecuador. [9] American intelligence, special forces and other personnel will be complicit in ongoing counterinsurgency operations against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in the nation's south as well as in rendering assistance to Washington's Colombian proxy for attacks inside Ecuador and Venezuela that will be portrayed as aimed at FARC forces in the two states.
Targeting two linchpins of and ultimately the entire Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), Washington is laying the groundwork for a potential military conflagration in South and Central America and the Caribbean. After the U.S.-supported coup in Honduras on June 28, that nation has announced it will be the first ALBA member state to ever withdraw from the Alliance and the Pentagon will retain, perhaps expand, its military presence at the Soto Cano Air Base there.
A few days ago "The Colombian government...announced it is building a new military base on its border with Venezuela and has activated six new airborne battalions" [10] and shortly afterward Dutch member of parliament Harry van Bommel "claimed that US spy planes are using an airbase on the Netherlands Antilles island of Curaçao" [11] off the Venezuelan coast.
In October a U.S. armed forces publication revealed that the Pentagon will spend $110 million to modernize and expand seven new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, across the Black Sea from Russia, where it will station initial contingents of over 4,000 troops. [12]
In early December the U.S. signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Poland, which borders the Russian Kaliningrad territory, that "allows for the United States military to station American troops and military equipment on Polish territory." [13] The U.S. military forces will operate Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) batteries as part of the Pentagon's global interceptor missile system.
At approximately the same time President Obama pressured Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to base missile shield components in his country. "We discussed the continuing role that we can play as NATO allies in strengthening Turkey's profile within NATO and coordinating more effectively on critical issues like missile defense," [14] in the American leader's words.
"Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has hinted his government does not view Tehran [Iran] as a potential missile threat for Turkey at this point. But analysts say if a joint NATO missile shield is developed, such a move could force Ankara to join the mechanism." [15]
2010 will see the first foreign troops deployed to Poland since the breakup of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 and the installation of the U.S's "stronger, swifter and smarter" (also Obama's words) interceptor missiles and radar facilities in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the South Caucasus. [16]
U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, site of the longest and most wide-scale war in the world, will top 100,000 early in 2010 and with another 50,000 plus troops from other NATO nations and assorted "vassals and tributaries" (Zbigniew Brzezinski) will represent the largest military deployment in any war zone in the world.
American and NATO drone missile and helicopter gunship attacks in Pakistan will also increase, as will U.S. counterinsurgency operations in the Philippines and Somalia along with those in Yemen where CIA and Army special forces are already involved.
U.S. military websites recently announced that there have been 3.3 million deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 with 2 million U.S. service members sent to the two war zones. [17]
In this still young millennium American soldiers have also deployed in the hundreds of thousands to new bases and conflict and post-conflict zones in Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Djibouti, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Mali, the Philippines, Romania, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
In 2010 they will be sent abroad in even larger numbers to man airbases and missile sites, supervise and participate in counterinsurgency operations throughout the world against disparate rebel groups, many of them secular, and wage combat operations in South Asia and elsewhere. They will be stationed on warships and submarines equipped with cruise and long-range nuclear missiles and with aircraft carrier strike groups prowling the world's seas and oceans.
They will construct and expand bases from Europe to Central and South Asia, Africa to South America, the Middle East to Oceania. With the exception of Guam and Vicenza in Italy, where the Pentagon is massively expanding existing installations, all the facilities in question are in nations and even regions of the world where the U.S. military has never before ensconced itself. Practically all the new encampments will be forward bases used for operations "down range," generally to the east and south of NATO-dominated Europe.
U.S. military personnel will be assigned to the new Global Strike Command and for expanded patrols and war games in the Arctic Circle. They will serve under the Missile Defense Agency to consolidate a worldwide interceptor missile network that will facilitate a nuclear first strike capability and will extend that system into space, the final frontier in the drive to achieve military full spectrum dominance.
American troops will continue to fan out to most all parts of the world. Everywhere, that is, except to their own nation's borders.
1) Scott Taylor, Macedonia's Civil War: 'Made in the USA'
Antiwar.com, August 20, 2001
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/taylor1.html
2) AFRICOM Year Two: Seizing The Helm Of The Entire World
Stop NATO, October 22, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/africom-year-two-taking-the-helm-of-the-entire-world
3) Cold War Origins Of The Somalia Crisis And Control Of The Indian Ocean
Stop NATO, May 3, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/cold-war-origins-of-the-somalia-crisis-and-control-of-the-indian-ocean
4) Fox News, December 27, 2009
5) Fox News, December 29, 2009
6) Press TV, December 16, 2009
7) Press TV, December 27, 2009
8) Yemen: Pentagon's War On The Arabian Peninsula
Stop NATO, December 15, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/yemen-pentagons-war-on-the-arabian-peninsula
9) Rumors Of Coups And War: U.S., NATO Target Latin America
Stop NATO, November 18, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/rumors-of-coups-and-war-u-s-nato-target-latin-america
10) BBC News, December 20, 2009
11) Radio Netherlands, December 22, 2009
12) Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East
Stop NATO, October 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/bulgaria-romania-u-s-nato-bases-for-war-in-the-east
13) Polish Radio, December 11, 2009
14) Hurriyet Daily News, December 30, 2009
15) Ibid
16) Black Sea, Caucasus: U.S. Moves Missile Shield South And East
Stop NATO, September 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/283
U.S. Expands Global Missile Shield Into Middle East, Balkans
Stop NATO, September 11, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/u-s-expands-global-missile-shield-into-middle-east-balkans
17) World's Sole Military Superpower's 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars
Stop NATO, December 21, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/worlds-sole-military-superpowers-2-million-troop-1-trillion-wa
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 2.
-
Yemen: La Guerra Del Pentagono Nella Penisola Araba
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:17 am (PST)
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/yemen-la-guerra-del-pentagono-nella-penisola-araba
Stop NATO
December 31, 2009
Yemen: La Guerra Del Pentagono Nella Penisola Araba
di Rick Rozoff
Traduzione di Gianluca Freda
http://blogghete.blog.dada.net
[Nota del traduttore: questo articolo è stato scritto dieci giorni prima che il fallito attentato di Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab contro il volo Delta 253 americano fornisse agli USA un felice pretesto per intervenire nella guerra civile in corso nello Yemen. L'autore aveva già capito quali fossero gli obiettivi e gli interessi in campo e li aveva illustrati con una certa accuratezza. Ci ha poi pensato la solita Al Qaeda, con il consueto petardo fatto esplodere in una locazione a caso, a creare la giustificazione per l'intervento. Al Qaeda è preziosa per la politica estera degli Stati Uniti: consente di giustificare qualsiasi invasione o aggressione, comparendo sempre nel luogo opportuno – quello in cui gli USA desiderano intervenire - al momento opportuno. Se non ci fosse bisognerebbe inventarla. E naturalmente è per questo che gli Stati Uniti l'hanno inventata. Qui sopra ho sottotitolato l'intervista rilasciata da Webster Tarpley a Russia
Today, in cui vengono forniti alcuni retroscena del finto attentato (ringrazio Huey Freeman e ComeDonChisciotte che mi hanno segnalato il video). ]
Il 14 dicembre la BBC News ha riferito che 70 civili erano rimasti uccisi nel corso di un bombardamento aereo effettuato sul mercato del villaggio di Bani Maan, nel nord dello Yemen.
Le forze armate nazionali si sono assunte la responsabilità dell'attacco, ma un sito web dei ribelli Houthi, contro i quali l'attacco era presumibilmente diretto, ha affermato che "aerei sauditi hanno compiuto un massacro contro gli innocenti abitanti di Bani Maan". [1]
Il regime saudita si è inserito, ai primi di novembre, nel conflitto armato tra i suddetti Houthi e il governo dello Yemen, a sostegno di quest'ultimo, e da allora è accusato di aver condotto attacchi all'interno dello Yemen con carri armati e aerei da guerra. Anche prima di quest'ultimo bombardamento, moltissimi yemeniti erano già stati uccisi e altre migliaia erano stati costretti alla fuga dai combattimenti. L'Arabia Saudita è anche accusata di aver utilizzato bombe al fosforo.
Inoltre, il gruppo ribelle noto come Giovani Credenti, con base nella comunità musulmana sciita dello Yemen che comprende il 30% dei 23 milioni di abitanti del paese, ha dichiarato il 14 dicembre che "jet da combattimento americani hanno attaccato la provincia di Sa'ada nello Yemen" e che "jet statunitensi hanno compiuto 28 attacchi contro la provincia nordoccidentale di Sa'ada". [2]
L'edizione del britannico Daily Telegraph uscita il giorno precedente riferiva di colloqui con funzionari militari statunitensi, affermando: "Nel timore che lo Yemen non riesca a fronteggiare la situazione, l'America ha inviato un piccolo numero di gruppi di forze speciali per addestrare l'esercito yemenita contro questa minaccia".
Veniva citato un anonimo funzionario del Pentagono, il quale avrebbe affermato: "Lo Yemen sta diventando una base di riserva di Al Qaeda per le sue attività in Pakistan e Afghanistan". [3]
L'evocazione del babau di Al Qaeda è comunque uno specchietto per le allodole. I ribelli del nord dello Yemen, infatti, sono sciiti e non sunniti, tantomeno sunniti wahabiti della varietà saudita, e pertanto non solo non possono essere ricollegati a nessun gruppo definibile come Al Qaeda, ma ne costituirebbero eventualmente un probabile bersaglio.
In ossequio ai progetti statunitensi sulla regione, la stampa americana e britannica ha di recente iniziato a parlare dello Yemen come della "patria ancestrale" di Osama Bin Laden. Certo, Bin Laden viene da una ben nota famiglia di miliardari dell'Arabia Saudita, ma poiché suo padre era nato più di un secolo fa in quella che è oggi la Repubblica dello Yemen, i media occidentali hanno iniziato a sfruttare questo irrilevante accidente storico per suggerire che Osama Bin Laden avrebbe un ruolo attivo all'interno della nazione e per creare un sottile legame tra le guerre in Afghanistan e Pakistan e l'intervento americano e saudita nella guerra civile dello Yemen.
Nel 2002 il Pentagono aveva inviato circa 100 soldati - secondo alcune fonti, forze speciali dei Berretti Verdi – nello Yemen, allo scopo di addestrare le forze militari del paese. In quell'occasione, verificatasi due anni dopo l'attacco suicida – attribuito ad Al Qaeda - contro la nave USS Cole di stanza nel porto di Aden, nello Yemen meridionale, e accompagnata da attacchi missilistici contro leader della stessa organizzazione, Washington giustificò le proprie azioni come ritorsione contro quell'incidente e contro gli attacchi a New York e Washington dell'anno precedente.
Il contesto attuale è assai diverso e una guerra antirivoluzionaria nello Yemen, sostenuta dagli USA, non avrebbe nulla a che fare con le presunte minacce di Al Qaeda, ma sarebbe parte integrante di una strategia per estendere la guerra afgana in cerchi concentrici sempre più vasti che comprendano l'Asia meridionale e centrale, il Caucaso e il Golfo Persico, il Sud-Est Asiatico e il Golfo di Aden, il Corno d'Africa e la Penisola Araba. La tanto attesa dipartita del presidente George W. Bush avrà anche portato la fine della guerra al terrorismo ufficiale, ora definita "operazioni del contingente oltremare", ma nulla è cambiato, a parte il nome.
Il 13 dicembre il Gen. David Petraeus, ufficiale supremo del Comando Centrale del Pentagono, a capo delle operazioni belliche in Afghanistan, Iraq e Pakistan, ha dichiarato alla TV Al –Arabiya che "gli Stati Uniti sostengono la sicurezza interna dello Yemen nell'ambito della cooperazione militare fornita dall'America ai suoi alleati nella regione" e ha sottolineato che "le navi americane che navigano nelle acque territoriali dello Yemen, [sono lì] non solo per svolgere funzioni di controllo, ma per impedire i rifornimenti di armi ai ribelli Houthi". [4]
Ricordiamocelo la prossima volta che la panzana di Al Qaeda/Bin Laden verrà usata per giustificare l'estensione del coinvolgimento militare americano nella Penisola Araba.
Lo Yemen Post del 13 dicembre riferiva che l'ufficio centrale dei ribelli Houthi aveva "accusato gli Stati Uniti di partecipare alla guerra contro gli Houthi" e aveva rilasciato fotografie di aerei militari americani "impegnati in operazioni di bombardamento contro la provincia di Sa'ada, nel nord dello Yemen". La fonte stimava che vi fossero stati almeno venti raid americani coordinati attraverso la sorveglianza satellitare. [5]
La stampa occidentale sta partendo di nuovo alla carica nel collegare gli Houthi, il cui background religioso di sciismo zaidita è molto diverso da quello iraniano, con le sinistre macchinazioni attribuite a Teheran. Nemmeno i funzionari del governo americano sono riusciti finora a raccogliere alcuna prova che l'Iran stia appoggiando, o addirittura armando, i ribelli dello Yemen. Questo cambierà se la sceneggiatura andrà avanti secondo i canoni consueti, come indicato dal commento di Petraeus riportato più sopra, e se Washington farà conveniente eco ai proclami del governo yemenita, secondo il quale l'Iran starebbe rifornendo di armi i suoi confratelli sciiti dello Yemen, così com'è accusato di fare in Libano.
Lo Yemen diventerà il campo di battaglia di una guerra per interposta persona tra Stati Uniti e Arabia Saudita da una parte – le cui relazioni politiche sono tra le più forti e durevoli dell'epoca successiva alla II Guerra Mondiale – e l'Iran dall'altra.
In un editoriale di cinque giorni fa, il Tehran Times accusava tutti i soggetti in conflitto nello Yemen – il governo, i ribelli e l'Arabia Saudita – di avventatezza e lanciava un avvertimento: "La storia ci fornisce un buon esempio. L'Arabia Saudita ha finanziato i gruppi estremisti in Afghanistan e ancora oggi, due decenni dopo il ritiro dell'armata sovietica dal paese, le fiamme della guerra in Afghanistan stanno devastando gli alleati dell'Arabia Saudita. Uno scenario simile sta ora emergendo nello Yemen". [6]
Il paragone tra lo Yemen e l'Afghanistan si riferiva soprattutto a Riyadh, nel secondo caso alleata di ferro degli Stati Uniti, e al suo tentativo di esportare il wahabismo di matrice saudita per espandere la propria influenza politica.
L'Arabia Saudita sta cercando di promuovere una propria versione dell'estremismo nello Yemen, come ha già fatto in Afghanistan e Pakistan e come sta attualmente facendo in Iraq. Senza che né gli Stati Uniti né i loro alleati occidentali esprimano la minima obiezione, i sauditi e le monarchie loro alleate del Golfo Persico si troveranno al centro, nei prossimi cinque anni, di un commercio di armamenti, stimato per un valore di circa 100 miliardi di dollari, dai paesi occidentali verso il Medio Oriente. "Il fulcro di questo commercio di armamenti sarà senza dubbio il pacchetto di sistemi militari da 20 miliardi di dollari che gli Stati Uniti hanno offerto nei prossimi 10 anni ai sei stati del Consiglio di Cooperazione del Golfo: Arabia Saudita, Emirati Arabi Uniti, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar e Bahrain". [7] L'Arabia Saudita dispone anche di aerei da guerra francesi e britannici di ultima generazione, nonché di sistemi di difesa antimissile forniti
dagli americani.
L'avvertimento sulle "fiamme della guerra" in Afghanistan, contenuto nel commento iraniano citato più sopra, è stato confermato alla lettera nella Valutazione Iniziale del Comando del 30 agosto 2009, rilasciata dal Generale Stanley McChrystal, comandante in capo delle forze americane e NATO in Afghanistan e pubblicato dal Washington Post il 21 settembre con le correzioni richieste dal Pentagono. Questo documento di 66 pagine è servito da punto di riferimento per l'annuncio fatto il 1° dicembre dal presidente Barack Obama, con cui si destinavano all'Afghanistan altri 33.000 soldati americani. Nel suo rapporto McChrystal affermava: "I gruppi ribelli più rilevanti in relazione al rischio che rappresentano per la missione sono: i talebani Quetta Shura (05T), la rete di Haqqani (HQN) e lo Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG)."
Gli ultimi due prendono il nome dai loro fondatori e attuali leader, Jalaluddin Haqqanni and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, i mujaheddin coccolati dalla CIA americana negli anni '80, quando il direttore dell'Agenzia (dal 1986 al 1989) era Robert Gates, oggi Segretario della Difesa USA, incaricato di proseguire la guerra in Afghanistan. E nello Yemen.
Nel suo libro del 1996, "From the Shadows", Gates si vantava del fatto che "la CIA ha ottenuto importanti successi nelle covert actions. Forse la più efficace di tutte è stata quella in Afghanistan, dove la CIA, attraverso i suoi funzionari, ha destinato miliardi di dollari ai rifornimenti di materiale e di armi per i mujaheddin…". [8]
Nel 2008, il New York Times rendeva noti i seguenti dettagli:
"Negli anni '80, Jalaluddin Haqqani venne coltivato come un patrimonio "unilaterale" della CIA e ricevette decine di migliaia di dollari in contanti per il suo impegno nella lotta contro l'Esercito Sovietico in Afghanistan, stando a quanto riportato in "The Bin Ladens", un recente libro di Steve Coll. A quel tempo, Haqqani aveva aiutato e protetto Osama Bin Laden, che stava mettendo insieme una propria milizia per combattere le forze sovietiche, scrive Coll. [9] Coll è anche autore del volume Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.
Hekmatyar, collega di Haqqani, "ricevette milioni di dollari dalla CIA, attraverso l'ISI [il Servizio d'Intelligence Pakistano]. Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin ricevette alcuni dei più sostanziosi aiuti da parte di Pakistan e Arabia Saudita e lavorò con migliaia di mujaheddin stranieri arrivati in Afghanistan". [10]
Nel maggio scorso il (ferventemente) filo-americano presidente del Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, aveva detto alla NBC americana che "i talebani sono parte del nostro e del vostro passato, l'ISI e la CIA li hanno creati insieme. (I talebani) sono un mostro creato da tutti noi…" [11]
L'11 settembre 2001 c'erano solo tre nazioni del mondo che riconoscevano il governo dei talebani in Afghanistan: Pakistan, Arabia Saudita ed Emirati Arabi Uniti. Subito dopo gli attacchi, il presidente George W. Bush identificò immediatamente sette dei cosiddetti "Stati fiancheggiatori del terrorismo" per potenziali ritorsioni: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libia, Corea del Nord, Sudan e Siria. Già il solo Sudan, che aveva espulso Osama Bin Laden nel 1996, aveva ogni possibile connessione col terrorismo. Dei 19 dirottatori accusati di aver condotto gli attacchi dell'11 settembre, 15 erano dell'Arabia Saudita, 2 degli Emirati Arabi Uniti, uno dell'Egitto e uno del Libano. Pakistan e Arabia Saudita restano alleati politici e militari di grande valore per l'America e gli Emirati Arabi hanno truppe che servono in Afghanistan sotto il comando della NATO.
E' forse impossibile stabilire il momento esatto in cui un sedicente combattente della guerra santa, appoggiato dagli USA, addestrato per compiere azioni di terrorismo urbano e per abbattere aerei civili, cessa di essere un combattente per la libertà e diventa un terrorista. Ma si può presumere con una certa sicurezza che ciò avviene quando egli non è più utile a Washington. Un terrorista che serve gli interessi americani è un combattente per la libertà; un combattente per la libertà che si rifiuta di farlo, è un terrorista.
Per decenni l'African National Congress di Nelson Mandela e l'Organizzazione per la Liberazione della Palestina di Yasser Arafat sono stati in cima alla lista dei gruppi terroristici compilata dal Dipartimento di Stato. Ma la Guerra Fredda era appena finita che già tanto Mandela quanto Arafat (come pure Gerry Adams del Sinn Fein) venivano invitati alla Casa Bianca. Il primo ricevette il Nobel per la pace nel 1993, il secondo nel 1994.
Se negli anni '80 un ipotetico militante jihadista fosse partito dall'Arabia Saudita o dall'Egitto per andare in Pakistan a combattere contro il governo dell'Afghanistan e i suoi alleati sovietici, agli occhi degli Stati Uniti egli sarebbe stato un combattente per la libertà. Se invece fosse andato in Libano, sarebbe stato un terrorista. Se fosse arrivato in Bosnia nei primi anni '90, sarebbe stato ancora un combattente per la libertà, ma se si fosse fatto vedere nella Striscia di Gaza o nella West Bank sarebbe stato un terrorista. Nel nord del Caucaso russo sarebbe rinato come combattente per la libertà, ma se fosse tornato in Afghanistan dopo il 2001 sarebbe stato un terrorista.
A seconda di come tira il vento dal Fondo Nebbioso, insomma, un separatista pakistano del Belucistan o un separatista indiano del Kashmir può diventare combattente per la libertà o terrorista.
E viceversa: nel 1998 l'inviato speciale degli USA nei Balcani, Robert Gelbard, descrisse l'Esercito di Liberazione del Kosovo (KLA), che combatteva contro il governo jugoslavo, come un'organizzazione terroristica: "So riconoscere un terrorista quando ne vedo uno, e questi uomini sono terroristi". [12]
Ma nel febbraio seguente, il Segretario di Stato americano Madeleine Albright portò cinque uomini del KLA, compreso il suo capo, Hashim Thaci, a Rambouillet, in Francia, per lanciare alla Jugoslavia un ultimatum che sapeva sarebbe stato rifiutato e avrebbe condotto alla guerra. L'anno successivo fu la stessa Albright a scortare Thaci in un tour personale del QG delle Nazioni Unite e del Dipartimento di Stato, invitandolo poi come ospite alla convention per le nomine presidenziali del Partito Democratico, a Los Angeles.
Lo scorso 1° novembre, Thaci, adesso primo ministro di uno pseudo-stato riconosciuto solo da 63 delle 192 nazioni del mondo, ha ospitato l'ex presidente USA Bill Clinton per l'inaugurazione di un monumento eretto in onore dei crimini di quest'ultimo. E della sua vanità.
Washington ha sostenuto i separatisti armati dell'Eritrea dalla metà degli anni '70 fino al 1991 nella loro guerra contro il governo dell'Etiopia.
Attualmente gli Stati Uniti forniscono armi alla Somalia e al Gibuti per la loro guerra contro l'Eritrea indipendente. Il Pentagono possiede nel Gibuti la più importante delle sue basi militari permanenti, la quale ospita 2.000 soldati e dalla quale viene gestita la sorveglianza tramite aerei spia sulla Somalia. E sullo Yemen.
Per dirla con le parole di Vautrin, il personaggio di Balzac: "Non esistono i principi, ma solo gli eventi; non ci sono leggi, ci sono solo circostanze…".Gli yemeniti sono gli ultimi ad apprendere la legge della giungla voluta dal Pentagono e dalla Casa Bianca. Insieme a Iran e Afghanistan, che lo specialista di contro-insorgenza Stanley McChrystal ha usato per perfezionare le proprie tecniche, lo Yemen sta per unirsi ai ranghi di tutte quelle nazioni in cui l'esercito degli Stati Uniti è impegnato in varie tipologie di azioni di guerra, ricche di massacri di civili e di altre forme di cosiddetti "danni collaterali": Colombia, Mali, Pakistan, Filippine, Somalia e Uganda.
1) BBC News, December 14, 2009
2) Press TV, December 14, 2009
3) Daily Telegraph, December 13, 2009
4) Yemen Post, December 13, 2009
5) Ibid.
6) Tehran Times, December 10, 2009
7) United Press International, August 25, 2009
8) BBC News, December 1, 2008
9) New York Times, September 9, 2008
10) Wikipedia
11) Press Trust of India, May 11, 2009
12) BBC News, June 28, 1998
- 3.
-
Twice As High: U.S. Afghan Death Toll Greater Than Iraq's For First
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:19 pm (PST)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-12-30-troop-deaths_N.htm
USA Today
December 31, 2009
Afghanistan far deadlier than Iraq for U.S. troops in 2009
By Tom Vanden Brook
WASHINGTON: More than twice as many U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in 2009 than in Iraq, U.S. casualty records show, and Afghanistan is likely to become an even deadlier place for American forces as reinforcements are rushed there to battle insurgents.
More than 300 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in 2009 compared with 148 in Iraq. This is the first year since the war in Iraq began in 2003 that more troops died in Afghanistan, Pentagon records show.
Military officials and analysts predict violence will increase in Afghanistan in 2010. President Obama has ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to fight Taliban insurgents and provide better security for Afghan civilians. That will bring the total number of U.S. forces to about 100,000. They will be joined by 50,000 troops from allies. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this month that he anticipates "a tough fight in 2010" in Afghanistan, resulting in higher casualties.
"It looks like 2010 is going to be pretty nasty" in Afghanistan, said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org. "It's going to be nasty simply because there will be more Americans to be shot. The Taliban are unabated."
Underscoring the danger in Afghanistan was a suicide bombing in Khost province in which eight American civilians were killed, Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told Bloomberg News.
....
Pike said he doubts the counterinsurgency strategy being pursued by Gen. Stanley McChrystal will have the same effect in Afghanistan [as in Iraq]. A lack of national unity, illiteracy and a weak government militate against success there, he said.
"We're going to kill the Taliban, and they're going to kill us," he said. "I don't know that much more is going to be accomplished beyond that."
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 4.
-
"Smart power" and "bear traps" in the Hindu Kush
Posted by: "linguisticresearch" LinguisticResearch@gmx.de
Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:02 pm (PST)
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2689
31.12.2009
M.K. BHADRAKUMAR (India)
*"Smart power" and "bear traps" in the Hindu Kush*
The US President Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at the regional
powers with his latest Afghan strategy. The constructive ambiguity in
his strategy falls in the Kissingerian tradition of negotiating tactic.
In a climate of deeply polarized political opinion, he is free to
advance matters of vital US interests, while retaining the prerogative
to revisit unresolved questions at a date of his choice.
This leaves major regional powers – Pakistan, Iran, India, China and
Russia – in some quandary. Obama taunted them to respond within 58 days
when they assemble for the London conference on "Afghanisation" on
January 28. That's a tough call.
To be sure, the regional powers are placed at a disadvantage as their
internecine tensions preclude scope of a regional initiative
materializing. Obama's strategy is all that is left, therefore, on the
table. Pakistan and India are locked in adversarial embrace and that
creates much geopolitical space for the US. No doubt, the US military
presence seriously destabilized Pakistan. The latest anti-Shi'ite serial
terrorist strikes in Karachi testify that in the name of the Taliban,
all sorts of forces are operating inside Pakistan – ranging from the CIA
to the Blackwater security firm to Wahhabi elements. Pakistan faces a
stark choice – fall in line with the US geo-strategy and earn American
goodwill, or face the consequences of recalcitrance.
As for the India, Washington holds out the comfort line that Obama is
bent on "stabilizing" Pakistan. Washington's noble endeavour of
cleansing Pakistan of militancy pleases Delhi although there is some
ennui. At any rate, Delhi is raring to contribute to the "Afghanisation"
of the war. Being a natural ally, there is no choice but to cooperate
with Washington's entreaties. On top of it all, there is the larger
preoccupation of "catching up" with China's surge, which modulates the
Indian mind at all hours.
Iran presents a case by itself. The US has succeeded in shaking the
foundations of Iran-Russia strategic understanding, which was a historic
legacy of Evgeniy Primakov's astute diplomacy with his Iranian
counterpart Ali Akbar Velayati to bring the bloody Tajik civil war to an
end. The erosion of Russia-Iran understanding enables Washington to make
the brazen attempt at "regime change" in Tehran. The geopolitics of the
Greater Middle East hangs in the balance. Of course, Tehran withstood
ferocious US assaults in the past and the revolutionary heritage is far
from dissipated. Also, China's continued support impacts on the
co-relation of forces.
China's role is immensely important also with regard to the efficacy of
the US policy toward Pakistan. The US ability to "pressure" China is
limited and hence Washington's smart overture for a Sino-American joint
venture in South Asia. But China remained reticent, keeping in mind the
"big picture" of the security inter-linkages of Xinjiang with Central
Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
America keenly wanted China to wet its toes in the fight against
al-Qaeda and Taliban but the latter knew a military involvement could
prove to be a dangerous gambit. Pakistan presents itself as a showcase
of the "collateral damage" of the US-led war. China, which was an
accomplice of the Americans in the great Afghan jihad of the 1980s
against the Soviet Union, would also know that the US has incredible
methods of "synergizing" militant Islam – and, in the present case,
Xinjiang's stability is involved.
The US is conscious that China (and Russia) does not share its
predicament of being in the crosshairs of the Islamists operating in the
Hindu Kush. While it got bogged down in a security quagmire, China
wisely focused on commerce. Life can be cruel at times. As the doughty
scholar on Xinjiang, Frederick Starr told the New York Times, "We [US]
do the heavy lifting. And they [China] pick the fruit".
Thus, in a startling show of "smart power", the US has presented Taiwan
with an invitation to render "non-military" assistance to Afghanistan.
It is an invitation that Taipei cannot spurn, as it comes alongside a
huge US arms package and in the downstream it holds out the tantalising
prospect that Taipei may look a rising star. Arguably, Washington is
cocking a snook at Beijing for its refusal to cooperate with Obama's
Afghan (or Iranian) strategy by muddying the waters in the Taiwan Straits.
Russia's position is equally delicate. Obama's war is helpful for Russia
to the extent that it may arrest the march of Islamism into the heart of
Central Asia. Russia has provided supply routes for the NATO countries.
Conceivably, Russia regards cooperation in Afghanistan to be helpful for
the "reset" of its US ties. Now comes the testy part. Like with China,
Washington wants Moscow to wet its toes in the Afghan war. It wants
Moscow to supply weapons and to dispatch military advisors to train
Afghan armed forces.
However, the fact remains that although the overall atmosphere of ties
with the US has improved, the reset as such remains hostage to a range
of issues – missile defence, NATO expansion, Moscow's acquiescence with
the containment strategy toward Iran, etc. Meanwhile, in bits and
pieces, what emerges is also that far from lapsing into an isolationist
policy, the US is searching for a robust geopolitical engagement in the
post-Soviet space in Central Asia.
In effect, Washington wants Moscow to help consolidate the US military
presence in Afghanistan, which would pave the way for an expansion of
American influence in the Greater Middle East, including Central Asia.
Unsurprisingly, Russia seems to face a dilemma somewhat similar to
China's but then, Russia-US engagement has a far more complicated
history. Obama's emphasis on "Afghanisation" is welcome. But the medium
and long-term US intentions remain obscure. All evidence points toward a
long-term – even open-ended – US military presence in Afghanistan. Any
lingering doubt was dispelled when in front of the /crème de la crème/
of the American Right, gathered under the canopy of the Heritage
Foundation in Washington, DC, Senator McCain openly vowed to be Obama's
"ally in this effort".
McCain is an indefatigable warrior who leaps out of Zbigniew
Brzezinski's Eurasian chessboard. McCain saw three great virtues in
Obama's Afghan strategy. First, Obama affirmed a "counterinsurgency" (as
against "counterterrorist") strategy, which was what the Pentagon
passionately sought. Second, "large numbers of US combat troops will
likely remain in Afghanistan long after July 2011". Three, following
from the above, the US will remain the "only actor in the region with
the strength and the stake" to "check and counter" external influences
that are "unhealthy" and to ensure on a long-term footing that
Afghanistan ceases to be "a field of regional competition and proxy
battles".
McCain summed up with total clarity of mind that "our [US's] regional
strategy must turn military gains [in Afghanistan] into diplomatic
leverage outside the country".
In fact, the US strategy of widening the gyre of the Afghan strategy to
draw in the Central Asian states, is steadily gaining momentum. A study
conducted recently by the influential Center of Strategic and
International Studies in Washington titled "The Northern Distribution
Network and the Modern Silk Road" (co-authored by Starr) proposes the
coalescing of Central Asia with the AfPak as the crucial underpinning of
the entire US geo-strategy towards Greater Middle East, Russia and China.
As diplomats from the regional capitals warily trudge toward the London
conference on "Afghanisation", there will be a lot on their mind. Is
"Afghanisation" a genuinely collective effort under UN leadership? Or is
it a mere "bear trap" under a new rubric? There hangs a tale. The
chilling reality is that Taliban, too, will be watching – having made
clear it will look back in anger at foreign powers that associate with
the US's intervention in the three-decade old fratricidal war.
------------------------
- 5.
-
Venezuela Accuses Netherlands Of Assisting U.S. Attack Plans
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:19 pm (PST)
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/venezuela-accuses-netherlands-aggression
Radio Netherlands
December 31, 2009
Venezuela accuses the Netherlands
The Venezuelan government is accusing the Netherlands of helping the United States prepare an attack from Dutch islands in the Caribbean.
A statement says that the warlike U.S. government, aided by the Netherlands, is preparing an assault on the territory of the Venezuelan people.
The Netherlands had earlier assured Venezuela that US troops were only on the islands of Aruba and Curaçao to combat the drugs trade. However, Venezuela is insisting its airspace has been violated by US military planes based on the Dutch islands.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez regularly lashes out at what he sees as US aggression. Recently the Netherlands has increasingly been included in his accusations.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 6.
-
Western troops accused of executing Afghan civilians, including chil
Posted by: "Romi Elnagar" bluesapphire48@yahoo.com bluesapphire48
Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:49 pm (PST)
Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children
- 7.
-
Swedes, Finn, Korean Among NATO Afghan Fatalities
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:12 pm (PST)
http://www.canada.com/news/ISAF+casualities+Afghanistan/2396312/story.html
Canada.com
December 31, 2009
ISAF casualities in Afghanistan
ISAF has suffered 1,481 casualties in Afghanistan as of Dec. 31, 2009. (This figure does not include four Canadian non-military casualties)
U.S. 860
U.K. 244
CANADA 138 (does not include civilian deaths — one diplomat, two aid workers and one journalist)
FRANCE 36
GERMANY 34
DENMARK 30
SPAIN 26
ITALY 22
NETHERLANDS 21
POLAND 16
ROMANIA 11
AUSTRALIA 11
ESTONIA 7
NORWAY 4
CZECH REPUBLIC 3
LATVIA 3
TURKEY 2
PORTUGAL 2
HUNGARY 2
SWEDEN 2
SOUTH KOREA 1
LITHUANIA 1
FINLAND 1
BELGIUM 1
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 8.
-
Venezuela Warns Against U.S. Incursions From Dutch Islands
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:26 pm (PST)
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C01%5C01%5Cstory_1-1-2010_pg4_6
Agence France-Presse
December 31, 2009
Venezuela warns US against incursions from Aruba, Curacao
CARACAS: Venezuela on Thursday warned the US military against violating its airspace from bases in Aruba and Curacao, repeating recent accusations that Washington is preparing an act of "aggression".
In a statement, Venezuela's foreign ministry called on the international community to condemn alleged incursions into its airspace by US military drones launched from Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles."(Venezuela) again calls on the international community to denounce the US use of the colonies of Aruba and Curacao, for the preparation of military aggression against Venezuela," the statement said.
"The subsequent violation of Venezuelan airspace on the part of the US military aircraft... allows us to conclude that the warmongering US government, in league with the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, is preparing an aggression against the territory and people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 9.
-
Morocco: U.S. Africa Command Chief Strengthens Military Ties
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:36 pm (PST)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/31/content_12737362.htm
Xinhua News Agency
December 31, 2009
Moroccan, U.S. military to strengthen cooperation
-This is Ward's third visit to Morocco, heading a AFRICOM delegation, after two previous visits in 2008.
RABAT: Commander of the United States African Command (AFRICOM) General William E. Ward visited Morocco, vowing to strengthen cooperation with the Moroccan army, local satellite channel Medi 1 Sat reported Thursday.
Ward met with Lieutenant General Abdelaziz Bennani, general inspector of the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces (FAR) and governor of the Southern Zone, and the two discussed bilateral military cooperation and opportunities to strengthen partnership between the Royal Armed Forces and the U.S. Army, the report said.
This is Ward's third visit to Morocco, heading a AFRICOM delegation, after two previous visits in 2008.
Morocco is an important partner in the region for the United States....
The AFRICOM command, currently temporarily headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, will coordinate U.S. military and security interests throughout the African continent.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 10.
-
Record U.S. Aid Goes For Weapons
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:42 pm (PST)
http://www.theage.com.au/world/record-us-aid-goes-on-armaments-20091231-ll0i.html
The Age (Australia)
January 1, 2010
Record US aid goes on armaments
Anne Davies
-Under the Obama Administration, the 2010 aid budget has been increased by 10 per cent to nearly $US50 billion to support his counter-terrorism strategy....According to work done by the Congressional Research Service, the US spent 17 per cent of the total US aid budget — or $US5.1 billion — on military aid in 2008, of which $US4.7 billion was grants to enable governments to receive equipment from the US.
-In the 2010 fiscal year, US development and security assistance to Yemen is expected to rise to $US63 million from a total of $US40.3 million in 2009, a 56 per cent increase.
But these sums do not include so-called 1206 Pentagon counter-terrorism funds. In 2009 Yemen received $US67 million of those, up from just $US5 million.
WASHINGTON: Just before Christmas, US President Barack Obama signed into law one of his country's biggest aid pledges of the year. It was bound not for Africa or any of the many struggling countries on the World Bank's list.
It was a 10-year deal for $US2.77 billion ($A3.1 billion) to go to Israel in 2010 and a total of $US30 billion over the next decade, mainly to be spent on US military hardware.
Despite the serious financial crisis in the US economy, the US is proceeding with its increased aid package to Israel.
Israel is bound by the agreement to use 75 per cent of the aid to buy military devices made in the US — and in a recession, those military factories are critical to many towns.
For the first time the US is also providing $US500 million to the Palestinian Authority, including $US100 million to train security forces, under the strict proviso that the authority's leadership recognises Israel.
For many years Israel has been the largest recipient of the US foreign-aid budget, followed by Egypt ($US1.75 billion) which also receives most of its assistance in tied military aid.
According to work done by the Congressional Research Service, the US spent 17 per cent of the total US aid budget — or $US5.1 billion — on military aid in 2008, of which $US4.7 billion was grants to enable governments to receive equipment from the US.
The lion's share of political and strategic aid to Iraq and Afghanistan comes from separate funds and from the defence budget.
Between 2003 and 2009, a massive $US49 billion has been poured into Iraq through the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund and the defence budget. The Afghanistan program over the same period consists of $US11 billion in traditional foreign aid and another $US15 billion in defence funds.
Under the Obama Administration, the 2010 aid budget has been increased by 10 per cent to nearly $US50 billion to support his counter-terrorism strategy.
The big increase is in assistance to Pakistan, which was recently given an additional $US1.5 billion a year for the next five years, tripling its aid.
The author of the bill, Senator John Kerry, said it would "build a relationship with the people [of Pakistan] to show that what we want is a relationship that meets their interests and needs".
But officials at the US embassy in Islamabad have alleged that Pakistan has diverted elsewhere 70 per cent of the $US9 billion in military assistance paid since 2001.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is finding that other expensive fronts in the war on terrorism are emerging, the latest being Yemen. In the 2010 fiscal year, US development and security assistance to Yemen is expected to rise to $US63 million from a total of $US40.3 million in 2009, a 56 per cent increase.
But these sums do not include so-called 1206 Pentagon counter-terrorism funds. In 2009 Yemen received $US67 million of those, up from just $US5 million.
After the events of the past week, it seems certain that countries like Yemen could receive significantly more in 2010.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 11.
-
U.S. Blitz Continues To Claim Lives In Pakistan
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Fri Jan 1, 2010 5:32 am (PST)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=115099§ionid=351020401
Press TV
January 1, 2010
US blitz continues to claim lives in Pakistan
At least five people have been killed and several others injured in two separate US drone strikes in the troubled northwestern region of Pakistan.
According to Pakistani officials, the Friday morning attack took place some 15 kilometers east of Miramshah, the main town of North Waziristan.
Missiles fired by an unmanned US drone killed at least three people traveling in a car.
"The bodies were burned beyond recognition. We are trying to determine their identity," Reuters quoted a regional security official as saying.
On Thursday night, a drone strike killed at least two people and wounded many others in the same region.
The drone targeted a house where "militants" were believed to be hiding.
Pakistani officials have said that it's not clear whether any high-value target was in the area at the time of the attacks.
The death toll is expected to rise as some of the injured were said to be in critical condition.
Hundreds of people, many of them civilians, have been killed since 2006 in CIA-operated drone strikes in Pakistan, according to local media.
Although Islamabad has long said the US attacks are counter-productive and violate Pakistan's sovereignty, there are reports that US drones take off from bases inside the Pakistani territory.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
0 comments:
Post a Comment