Archive
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 protracted 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” composed 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
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
17) World’s Sole Military Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars
Stop NATO, December 21, 2009
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.]
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
EE.UU. recluta en todo el mundo para la guerra afgana
Stop NATO
28 de diciembre 2009
EE.UU. recluta en todo el mundo para la guerra afgana
Rick Rozoff
Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Germán Leyens
http://rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=97737
Los primeros de los 33.000 soldados adicionales de EE.UU. han llegado a Afganistán para una ‘oleada’ de Navidad y pronto se les sumarán hasta 10.000 soldados no estadounidenses que servirán bajo la OTAN en la ISAF (Fuerza Internacional de Asistencia para la Seguridad). Washington tendrá un personal uniformado de más de 100.000 y decenas de miles de nuevos contratistas militares en la zona de guerra surasiática, y con más de 50.000 soldados de la OTAN y de socios de la OTAN la suma de las fuerzas excederá los 150.000.
Con la excepción de una pequeña cantidad de soldados asignados a la Misión de Entrenamiento de la OTAN – Iraq en Bagdad, se ordenó a los Estados miembro, sobre todo a los nuevos, de la OTAN, y a los Estados candidatos, que trasfirieran sus fuerzas de Iraq a Afganistán hace aproximadamente un año y están enviando soldados de misiones en Kosovo, Líbano y Chad a la misma destinación. El frente de batalla afgano, por lo tanto, tiene la mayor cantidad de fuerzas militares estacionadas en cualquier zona de guerra del mundo. [1]
Soldados de países de la OTAN estacionados en Bosnia, la República Centroafricana, Chad, Líbano y frente a la costa de Somalia están asignados actualmente a misiones de la Unión Europea (barcos de guerra europeos también participan en la interdicción naval Escudo del Océano de la OTAN en aguas somalíes y el Golfo de Adén) y su trasferencia al frente de guerra surasiático indica la virtual intercambiabilidad de unidades armadas asignadas a la OTAN y a la Unión Europea. [2]
Desde el comienzo de la escalada de la guerra de este año en Afganistán y hacia el vecino Pakistán, personalidades públicas y medios occidentales se han ocupado frecuente y extensivamente de que la guerra es un –o el– test para la OTAN, ostensiblemente el mayor hito y crisol en su historia de 60 años.
Cuando el bloque, la única alianza militar del mundo, invocó su cláusula de ayuda mutua del Artículo 5 en septiembre de 2001 para apoyar a su principal miembro, EE.UU., en su invasión y ocupación de Afganistán, la Alianza acababa de vivir su primera guerra: la campaña de 78 días de bombardeo contra Yugoslavia a comienzos de 1999, el primer ataque militar generalizado contra una nación europea desde los ataques e invasiones de Hitler y Mussolini de 1939-1941.
Al activar el Artículo 5 –“Las Partes acuerdan que un ataque armado contra una o más de ellas en Europa o Norteamérica será considerado un ataque contra todas ellas [y] ayudarán a la Parte o Partes atacadas” – la OTAN se alistó para su primera guerra terrestre y su primera guerra en Asia.
También aprovechó su provisión de guerra efectiva para lanzar la Operation Active Endeavor [Operación Esfuerzo Activo] a comienzos de octubre de 2001, un programa exhaustivo, hermético, de vigilancia e interdicción naval en todo el Mar Mediterráneo que monitorea toda la actividad en el nuevo mare nostrum de la OTAN y que domina todos los puntos de acceso al mar más importante del mundo: el Estrecho de Gibraltar, el Estrecho de los Dardanelos y el Canal de Suez, conectando el Mediterráneo con el Océano Atlántico, el Mar Negro, el Mar Rojo y por lo tanto con el Océano Índico, respectivamente.
La alianza encabezada por EE.UU. obtuvo el control sobre esa vasta gama de vías navegables mediante la adopción de los pretextos estadounidenses posteriores al 11 de septiembre de 2001 de combate contra el terrorismo y las armas de destrucción masiva. El primero fue la justificación para la invasión de Afganistán, el segundo para invadir Iraq.
Tres años después de la inauguración de Esfuerzo Activo, que continúa con toda su fuerza hasta hoy, la cumbre de la OTAN en Turquía desarrolló la Iniciativa de Cooperación de Estambul que actualizó la cooperación militar con los miembros del Diálogo Mediterráneo del bloque –Argelia, Egipto, Israel, Jordania, Mauritania, Marruecos y Túnez– y propuso a los seis miembros del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo –Bahrein, Kuwait, Omán, Qatar, Arabia Saudí y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos– para una relación similar, modelada según el programa de Cooperación para la Paz que preparó a doce naciones europeas orientales para su acceso a la calidad de miembro pleno de la OTAN durante la última década. [3]
En diez años el bloque militar ha expandido más allá de sus límites de la Guerra Fría, Norteamérica y Europa Occidental y Meridional, a casi toda Europa Oriental, incluidos Estados del antiguo Pacto de Varsovia y repúblicas soviéticas y yugoslavas. La división militar bipolar de Europa simbolizada por el Muro de Berlín [4], que terminó hace veinte años, ha sido reemplazada por una expansión unilateral del único bloque militar del mundo hacia las fronteras occidentales de Rusia, del mar Báltico a los mares Negro y Adriático. De ahí ha extendido su alcance mediante despliegues y cooperaciones hacia el sur del Cáucaso, África nororiental y central, y Asia central y del sur.
Si Afganistán es una prueba o el ensayo de la OTAN en su año 60, no lo es para la OTAN de 1949 sino para lo que importantes funcionarios de la Alianza y otros defensores han llamado en los últimos años una OTAN del Siglo XXI, una OTAN expedicionaria, una OTAN global: El primer intento en la historia de forjar una alianza militar internacional. Una red armada internacional que tiene a la autoproclamada superpotencia exclusiva del mundo y su arsenal nuclear como su fundamento y su núcleo.
La guerra “asimétrica” en Afganistán que está ahora en su noveno año es una empresa seminal para la OTAN en diversos aspectos. Aparte de representar la primera guerra terrestre del bloque y su primera excursión colonial fuera del mundo euro-atlántico, la prolongada, y según todos los indicios indefinida campaña en el sur de Asia es un laboratorio y campo de entrenamiento, polígono de tiro y punto de convergencia para la consolidación estadounidense de una fuerza global militar de ataque y ocupación probada por primera vez en Kosovo en 1999 con 50.000 soldados bajo comando de la OTAN, luego en Iraq después de 2003 con decenas de miles de soldados de la OTAN, y nuevas naciones de la OTAN y candidatas al bloque. [5]
Ahora Washington y Bruselas han obligado a contingentes armados de cincuenta naciones de cinco continentes para que sirvan bajo un comandante, el general Stanley McChrystal, jefe de todas las fuerzas de EE.UU. y de la OTAN en Afganistán. Los nuevos Estados que contribuyen incluyen a países geográficamente remotos y diversos en otros sentidos, como Colombia, Bosnia, Georgia, Montenegro, Mongolia, Armenia y Corea del Sur. Todos, con la excepción de Mongolia, han sido escenario de guerras o podrían serlo en cualquier momento. Como han establecido numerosas declaraciones de dirigentes políticos y militares de naciones que suministran soldados a la OTAN para la guerra afgana, ese campo de batalla es un lugar y oportunidad ideal para obtener experiencia real de combate a fin de aplicarla en casa. La mayoría de los países en esta categoría limitan con Rusia en sus flancos noroccidental y suroccidental. [6]
El ministro de defensa de Austria, una de las pocas naciones europeas que todavía no son miembros plenos de la OTAN, se quejó recientemente de que funcionarios estadounidenses estuvieran presionando a su país para que suministrara más soldados para su despliegue en Afganistán, y tuvo que recordar a los lectores de uno de los periódicos de su país que su país sigue siendo un Estado soberano. Como informa Deutsche Welle, “Austria y EE.UU. disputan por la cantidad de soldados austríacos en Afganistán. El gobierno austríaco dice que siente una fuerte presión de EE.UU. para que envíe más soldados a la misión de la OTAN.”
El periódico surcoreano Dong-A Ilbo escribió el 21 de diciembre que “la OTAN ha invitado por primera vez a una delegación militar coreana a una reunión el próximo año de países que envían soldados a Afganistán.”
“El despacho de tropas coreanas, programado para julio, probablemente acelerará una amplia cooperación militar entre Corea y la OTAN.” La fuente agregó que la evaluación de Corea por la OTAN está cambiando con el advenimiento del nuevo gobierno de Lee Myung-bak en Seúl, ya que Corea participa activamente en la cooperación internacional de seguridad, incluida su decisión de enviar tropas a Afganistán y de unirse plenamente a la Iniciativa de Seguridad de la Proliferación.” La Iniciativa de Seguridad de la Proliferación (PSI) es otro mecanismo, vinculado al proyecto de la armada de mil barcos de EE.UU. así como a la Operación Esfuerzo Activo de la OTAN, para comprometer a más y más naciones de todo el mundo en una red militar internacional dirigida por Washington.[7]
Corea del Sur ya es lo que es identificado por la OTAN como País de Contacto socio, los otros son Japón, Australia y Nueva Zelanda, como fundamento para una “OTAN asiática” en rápida emergencia que incluye a Singapur y Mongolia –que tienen o tendrán por primera vez tropas sirviendo bajo la OTAN en Afganistán– así como las Filipinas, Tailandia, Brunei y futuras posibilidades como India, Bangladesh y Camboya y las cinco ex repúblicas soviéticas en Asia Central, así como Afganistán y Pakistán. [8]
Mientras avanza hacia el este, el bloque Noratlántico también lo ha hecho hacia el sur y ha comenzando a penetrar formalmente África, con una misión de transporte aéreo hacia la región de Darfur en Sudán en 2005 y despliegues navales frente a Somalia en el Cuerno de África desde 2007.
El principal aliado militar de Washington en Sudamérica y en toda Latinoamérica, Colombia, fuera de entregar siete bases militares al Pentágono en una acción que podría provocar una guerra con sus vecinos Venezuela y Ecuador, está enviando una compañía de soldados entrenados por EE.UU. a la misión de la ISAF de la OTAN. Aportarán su propia experiencia bélica a la nación surasiática y volverán a casa, como sus equivalentes militares georgianos y surcoreanos, también entrenados por EE.UU., mejor preparados para conflictos armados contra Estados vecinos.
Aparte de que Gran Bretaña, Francia y Holanda son obligados a prestar sus posesiones coloniales en Latinoamérica y ante sus costas a su aliado estadounidense de la OTAN para utilizarlas contra los países miembro de la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA) Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela (Honduras post golpe se retira), se han tomado pasos en los últimos quince años para expandir los vínculos de la OTAN con otras naciones latinoamericanas. [9]
En 1995 Chile y Argentina (bajo el presidente Carlos Menem) enviaron tropas para que sirvieran bajo la OTAN en Bosnia, el primer despliegue militar de la Alianza fuera del territorio de un Estado miembro. Esta semana Chile aceptó la prolongación del estacionamiento de tropas en ese país –la misión ha sido trasferida de la OTAN a la Unión Europea– y un funcionario del gobierno declaró: “Hemos podido ver a Chile junto a la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte en un país europeo, y la interacción de nuestras fuerzas armadas con ejércitos de primera categoría del mundo.” [10]
La guerra y la trayectoria bélica de los candidatos a la OTAN y los Estados asociados de la OTAN durante los últimos quince años, se extendieron desde Bosnia a Kosovo a Macedonia y a Iraq, y finalmente Afganistán. Fuerzas armadas chilenas, gane quien gane la segunda vuelta en la elección presidencial, podrían terminar por ser enviadas a Afganistán.
Mediante el fortalecimiento de los lazos con Chile, que participa en la actual disputa multinacional por derechos en la Antártica, y con Sudáfrica, donde barcos de guerra de la OTAN han atracado y realizado ejercicios navales durante los últimos años, además de Australia que tiene el mayor contingente de los países no miembros sirviendo bajo la OTAN en Afganistán, la Alianza se posiciona para la rebatiña por el extremo sur del planeta [11] como lo está para la existente por la parte superior del mundo. [12]
Dos meses antes del desmantelamiento del Muro de Berlín y el fin efectivo de la Guerra Fría, se realizó la cumbre trienal del Movimiento de los No-Alineados en Belgrado, Yugoslavia. Estuvieron presentes los representantes de 108 naciones que se definieron como no-alineados en lo militar.
Veinte años después, y con más de veinte países adicionales en el mundo después de la desintegración de la Unión Soviética, de Checoslovaquia y de la propia Yugoslavia y la independencia de Timor Oriental, la presión por unirse a acuerdos militares, asociaciones, ejercicios y establecimiento de bases de EE.UU. y la OTAN es más intensa que durante la Guerra Fría.
El recientemente activado Comando África de EE.UU. apunta por sí solo a 53 naciones para asociaciones individuales y colectivas con el Pentágono. La guerra en Afganistán es la piedra de toque global más amplia hasta la fecha en la militarización del mundo. Washington presiona a todo el mundo para que contribuya con tropas, logística y fondos y emplea la guerra para establecer vínculos militares bilaterales y la interoperabilidad de armas y técnicas militares con naciones en todo el mundo.
La primera década del nuevo milenio ha sido de guerra, que comenzó en serio en Afganistán, y la expansión de bases y tropas estadounidenses en Europa Oriental, Oriente Próximo, África, Sudamérica y Asia central y del sur. Áreas que hasta ahora se habían salvado de la presencia permanente del Pentágono.
Notas
1) U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History, Stop NATO, September 24, 2009
2) EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination, Stop NATO, February 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eu-nato-us-21st-century-alliance-for-global-domination
3) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbu, Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul
4) 1989-2009: Moving The Berlin Wall To Russia’s Borders, Stop NATO, November 7, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/1989-2009-berlin-wall-moves-to-russian-border
5) Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army, Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army
6) Afghan War: NATO Trains Finland, Sweden For Conflict With Russia, Stop NATO, July 26, 2009
7) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of World’s Oceans, Prelude To War, Stop NATO, January 29, 2009
8) Global Military Bloc: NATO’s Drive Into Asia, Stop NATO, January 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/global-military-bloc-natos-drive-into-asia
U.S. Expands Asian NATO Against China, Russia, Stop NATO, October 16, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/u-s-expands-asian-nato-against-china-russia
9) Twenty Years After End Of The Cold War: Pentagon’s Buildup In Latin America, Stop NATO, November 4, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/stop-nato
10) Xinhua News Agency, December 22, 2009
11) NATO Of The South: Chile, South Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Stop NATO, May 30, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/nato-of-the-south-chile-south-africa-australia-antarctica
12) NATO’s, Pentagon’s New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic, Stop NATO, February 2, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/natos-pentagons-new-strategic-battleground-the-arctic
End Of The Year: U.S. Recruits Worldwide For Afghan War
Stop NATO
December 23, 2009
End Of The Year: U.S. Recruits Worldwide For Afghan War
Rick Rozoff
The first of 33,000 more U.S. troops have arrived in Afghanistan for a Christmas surge and they will soon be joined by as many as 10,000 additional non-American troops serving under NATO in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Washington will have over 100,000 uniformed personnel and tens of thousands of new military contractors in the South Asian war zone, and with more than 50,000 other NATO and NATO partner forces present total troop strength will exceed 150,000.
Except for a modest amount of troops assigned to the NATO Training Mission – Iraq in Baghdad, the U.S. with its 120,000 troops is now largely alone in that country. NATO, especially new NATO, member and candidate states were ordered to transfer their forces from Iraq to Afghanistan starting approximately a year ago and are now redeploying soldiers from missions in Kosovo, Lebanon and Chad to the same destination. The Afghan battlefront, then, currently has the largest amount of military forces stationed in any war zone in the world. [1]
Troops from NATO countries stationed in Bosnia, the Central African Republic, Chad, Lebanon and off the coast of Somalia are currently assigned to European Union missions (European warships also participate in NATO’s Ocean Shield naval interdiction in Somali waters and the Gulf of Aden) and their transfer to the South Asian war front indicates the virtual interchangeability of armed units assigned to NATO and the European Union. [2]
Since the beginning of this year’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan and into neighboring Pakistan, Western public figures and media have dwelt frequently and at length on the war being a – or the – test for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ostensibly the major watershed and crucible in its 60-year history.
When the bloc, the world’s only military alliance, invoked its Article 5 mutual assistance clause in September of 2001 to support its leading member, the U.S., in its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Alliance was fresh on the heels of its first-ever war: The 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in early 1999, the first all-out military assault targeting a European nation since Hitler’s and Mussolini’s attacks and invasions of 1939-1941.
By activating Article 5 – “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all [and] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith” – NATO enlisted for its first land war and its first war in Asia.
It also exploited its effective war provision to launch Operation Active Endeavor in early October of 2001, a comprehensive, airtight naval surveillance and interdiction program throughout the entire Mediterranean Sea that monitors all activity in NATO’s new mare nostrum (our sea) and dominates all access points into the world’s most important sea: The Strait of Gibraltar, the Dardanelles Strait and the Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean with the Atlantic Ocean, the Black Sea, the Red Sea and thence to the Indian Ocean, respectively.
The U.S.-led military alliance gained control over that vast stretch of strategic waterways by adopting the American post-September 11, 2001 pretexts of combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The first was the rationale for invading Afghanistan, the second for invading Iraq.
Three years after the inauguration of Active Endeavor, which continues with full force to this day, the NATO summit in Turkey developed the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative which upgraded military partnerships with the members of the bloc’s Mediterranean Dialogue – Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia – and targeted the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – for a similar relationship, one modeled on the Partnership for Peace program that prepared twelve Eastern European nations for accession to full NATO membership over the last decade. [3]
In ten years the military bloc has expanded from its Cold War confines, North America and Western and Southern Europe, into almost all of Eastern Europe including former Warsaw Pact states and Soviet and Yugoslav republics. The bipolar military division of Europe symbolized by the Berlin Wall [4] that ended twenty years ago has been replaced by a unilateral expansion of the world’s sole military bloc toward Russia’s western borders, from the Baltic to the Black to the Adriatic Seas. From there it has extended its reach through deployments and partnerships into the South Caucasus, Northeastern and Central Africa, and Central and South Asia.
If Afghanistan is a trial or the test of NATO in its sixtieth year, it is not so for the NATO of 1949 but of what leading Alliance officials and other proponents in recent years have referred to as 21st century NATO, expeditionary NATO, global NATO: The first attempt in history to forge an international military alliance. An international armed network with the world’s self-proclaimed exclusive superpower and its nuclear arsenal as its foundation and at its core.
The “asymmetric” war in Afghanistan now in its ninth year is a seminal venture for NATO in several respects. In addition to it signifying the bloc’s first ground war and its first colonial excursion outside the Euro-Atlantic world, the drawn-out and by all indications indefinite campaign in South Asia is laboratory and training camp, firing range and convergence point for the U.S.’s consolidation of a global military strike and occupation force first tested in Kosovo in 1999 with 50,000 troops under NATO command, then in Iraq after 2003 with tens of thousands of troops from NATO, new NATO and NATO candidate nations. [5]
Washington and Brussels have now dragooned armed contingents from fifty nations on five continents to serve under one commander, General Stanley McChrystal, head of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. New contributing states include geographically remote and otherwise diverse countries that include Colombia, Bosnia, Georgia, Montenegro, Mongolia, Armenia and South Korea. All except Mongolia either are or have recently been the scenes of wars or at any moment may be. As numerous statements by political and military leaders of nations supplying troops to NATO for the Afghan war have established, that battleground is an ideal location and opportunity for gaining real-life combat experience for application at home. The bulk of countries in this category border Russia on the latter’s northwestern and southwestern flanks. [6]
The defense minister of Austria, one of only a small number of European nations now yet a full NATO member, recently lamented that American officials were pressuring his country to provide more troops for deployment to Afghanistan, having to remind readers of one of his country’s newspapers that his is still a sovereign state. As reported in Deutsche Welle, “Austria and the United States are quarreling over Austria’s troop levels in Afghanistan. The Austrian government says it feels strong pressure from the US to send more of its troops to the NATO mission.”
The South Korean daily Dong-A Ilbo wrote on December 21 that “NATO has invited for the first time a Korean military delegation to a meeting next year of countries sending troops to Afghanistan.
“The dispatch of Korean troops scheduled for July will likely help expedite far-reaching military cooperation between Korea and NATO.” The source added that with the advent of the new Lee Myung-bak government in Seoul “As Korea actively participates in international security cooperation, including its decision to send troops to Afghanistan and fully join the Proliferation Security Initiative, NATO’s assessment of Korea is changing.” The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a another mechanism, linked with the U.S. thousand-ship navy project as well as NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, to enmesh more and more nations around the world into an international military network run from Washington. [7]
South Korea is already what is identified by NATO as a Contact Country partner, the others being Japan, Australia and New Zealand, serving as the foundation stones for a rapidly emerging “Asian NATO” that includes Singapore and Mongolia – both of whom have or will have troops serving under NATO for the first time, in Afghanistan – as well as the Philippines, Thailand, Brunei and future prospects like India, Bangladesh and Cambodia and the five former Soviet republics in Central Asia as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan. [8]
While advancing eastward, the North Atlantic bloc has also moved south and has begun to formally penetrate Africa, with an air transport mission to the Darfur region of Sudan in 2005 and naval deployments off Somalia in the Horn of Africa beginning in 2007.
Washington’s mainstay military ally in South and all of Latin America, Colombia, in addition to turning over seven military bases to the Pentagon in a move that could ignite a war with its neighbors Venezuela and Ecuador, is sending a company of battle-hardened U.S.-trained combat troops to Afghanistan for NATO’s ISAF mission. They will bring their own wartime experience to bear in the South Asian nation and will return home, like their Georgian and South Korean military counterparts, also trained by the U.S., better prepared for armed conflict against neighboring states.
In addition to Britain, France and the Netherlands being obligated to lend their colonial possessions in Latin America and off its coasts to their U.S. NATO ally for use against Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) members Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela (post-coup Honduras is withdrawing), steps have been taken over the past fifteen years to expand NATO ties with other Latin American nations as well as Colombia. [9]
In 1995 Chile and Argentina (under President Carlos Menem) sent troops to serve under NATO in Bosnia, the Alliance’s first military deployment outside a member state’s territory. This week Chile agreed to prolong the stationing of troops there – the mission since having been transferred from NATO to the European Union – with a government official stating, “We have been able to see Chile together with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in a European country, and the interaction of our armed forces with first-level armies of the world.” [10]
The war and war zone trajectory for NATO candidates and partner states over the past fifteen years has been from Bosnia to Kosovo to Macedonia to Iraq and finally Afghanistan. Chilean armed forces, whoever wins next month’s presidential run-off election, may eventually be sent to Afghanistan.
Solidifying ties with Chile, which is involved in the current multinational dispute over claims in the Antarctic, and with South Africa, where NATO warships and have docked and conducted naval exercises over the past two years, in addition to Australia which has the largest non-member troop contingent serving under NATO in Afghanistan, the Alliance is positioning itself for the scramble at the southern end of the planet [11] as it is for that at the top of the world. [12]
Two months before the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the effective end of the Cold War, the triennial summit of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Present were the representatives of 108 nations that defined themselves as militarily non-aligned.
Twenty years later, and with over twenty more countries in the world after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia itself and the independence of East Timor, the pressure to join in military agreements, partnerships, deployments, exercises and base hosting with the U.S. and NATO is more intense than during the Cold War.
The newly activated U.S. Africa Command alone targets 53 nations for individual and collective partnerships with the Pentagon. The war in Afghanistan is the broadest global touchstone to date in this militarization of the world. Washington is pressuring all and sundry to contribute with troops, logistics and funds and is employing the war to build up bilateral military ties and weapons and warfighting interoperability with nations throughout the world.
The first decade of the new millennium has been one of war, starting in earnest in Afghanistan, and the expansion of American bases and troops into Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Central and South Asia. Areas that until now had been spared the Pentagon’s permanent presence.
1) U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History
Stop NATO, September 24, 2009
2) EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination
Stop NATO, February 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eu-nato-us-21st-century-alliance-for-global-domination
3) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul
Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul
4) 1989-2009: Moving The Berlin Wall To Russia’s Borders
Stop NATO, November 7, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/1989-2009-berlin-wall-moves-to-russian-border
5) Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army
Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army
6) Afghan War: NATO Trains Finland, Sweden For Conflict With Russia
Stop NATO, July 26, 2009
7) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of
World’s Oceans, Prelude To War
Stop NATO, January 29, 2009
8) Global Military Bloc: NATO’s Drive Into Asia
Stop NATO, January 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/global-military-bloc-natos-drive-into-asia
U.S. Expands Asian NATO Against China, Russia
Stop NATO, October 16, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/u-s-expands-asian-nato-against-china-russia
9) Twenty Years After End Of The Cold War: Pentagon’s Buildup In Latin
America
Stop NATO, November 4, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/stop-nato
10) Xinhua News Agency, December 22, 2009
11) NATO Of The South: Chile, South Africa, Australia, Antarctica
Stop NATO, May 30, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/nato-of-the-south-chile-south-africa-australia-antarctica
12) NATO’s, Pentagon’s New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
Stop NATO, February 2, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/natos-pentagons-new-strategic-battleground-the-arctic
Jemen: Das Pentagon führt auch auf der arabischen Halbinsel Krieg
Stop NATO
23. Dezember 2009
Jemen: Das Pentagon führt auch auf der arabischen Halbinsel Krieg
Rick Rozoff
Quelle und Übersetzung: Wolfgang Jung, luftpost-kl.de
———-
Der Jemen wird das Schlachtfeld für einen Stellvertreter-Krieg zwischen dem Iran auf der einen und den Vereinigten Staaten und Saudi-Arabien auf der anderen Seite werden; die zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen der beiden letztgenannten gehören zu den engsten und stabilsten in der ganzen Ära nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg.
Es ist wahrscheinlich unmöglich, den genauen Zeitpunkt zu bestimmen, zu dem von den USA unterstützte, selbsternannte “heilige Krieger” – die dazu ausgebildet wurden, Terroranschläge in Städten zu verüben und Passagierflugzeuge abzuschießen – aufhören, Freiheitskämpfer zu sein und zu Terroristen werden. Es ist aber ziemlich sicher, dass dies geschieht, wenn sie Washington nicht länger von Nutzen sind. Ein Terrorist, der amerikanischen Interessen dient, ist ein Freiheitskämpfer; ein Freiheitskämpfer, der das nicht mehr tut, ist ein Terrorist.
Jetzt lernen die Jemeniten die Gesetze des Dschungels kennen, nach denen das Pentagon und das Weiße Haus handeln. Nach dem Irak und Afghanistan, wo Stanley McChrystal, der Spezialist für Aufstandsbekämpfung, seine Techniken perfektioniert hat, gehört jetzt auch der Jemen zu den Staaten, in denen das Pentagon auf diese spezielle Art Krieg führt – mit zahlreichen Massakern an Zivilisten und anderen so genannten Kollateralschäden – wie Kolumbien, Mali, Pakistan, die Philippinen, Somalia und Uganda.
———-
In den BBC News wurdet am 14. Dezember berichtet, dass 70 Zivilisten starben, als Flugzeuge einen Markt im Dorf Bani Maan im Nordjemen bombardierten (s. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8411726.stm ).
Die jemenitischen Streitkräfte übernahmen die Verantwortung für den mörderischen Angriff, aber auf einer Website der Houthi-Rebellen, denen der Bombenangriff offensichtlich galt, wurde berichtet, dass “saudische Flugzeuge das Gemetzel unter den unschuldigen Einwohnern von Bani Maan angerichtet haben”. [1] Das saudische Regime hat Anfang November auf Seiten der jemenitschen Regierung in die bewaffnete Auseinandersetzung mit den aufständischen Houthis eingegriffen und wird seither beschuldigt, mit Panzern und Kampfflugzeugen Angriffe auf dem Gebiet des Jemen durchzuführen. Schon vor dem jüngsten Bombardement wurden Hunderte Jemeniten bei den Kämpfen getötet und Tausende aus ihren Häusern vertrieben. Saudi-Arabien wurde beschuldigt, auch Phosphor-Bomben eingesetzt zu haben. (Weitere Infos unter http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=111124 und http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=113616§ionid=351020206 )
Die Rebellen, die sich “Junge Gläubige” nennen, sind Teil der schiitisch-muslimischen Gemeinschaft des Jemens, der 30 Prozent der jemenitischen Bevölkerung von 23 Millionen Menschen angehören; sie behaupten außerdem, dass am 14. Dezember “US-Kampfflugzeuge die Provinz Saada bombardiert und insgesamt 28 Angriffe in dieser nordwestlichen Provinz des Jemen durchgeführt haben” (s. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=113687§ionid=351020206 ). [2]
Die britische Zeitung DAILY TELEGRAPH berichtete am 13.12.09 über Gespräche mit US-Militärs, die erklärten: “Aus Besorgnis darüber, dass auch der Jemen in Gefahr ist, zu einem “Failed State” (gescheiterten Staat) zu werden, hat Amerika jetzt einige Spezialkräfte-Teams entsandt, die zur Abwendung dieser Bedrohung die Ausbildung der jemenitischen Armee verbessern sollen.”
Ein ungenannter Pentagon-Offizieller wurde mit folgender Behauptung zitiert: “Der Jemen ist zu einer Ausgangsbasis für die Aktivitäten der Al-Qaida in Pakistan und Afghanistan geworden.” (Artikel unter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/6803120/US-special-forces-train-Yemen-army-as-Arab-state-becomes-al-Qaeda-reserve-base.html ) [3]
Das Schreckgespenst Al-Qaida wird jedoch nur als Vorwand benutzt. Die Rebellen im Nordjemen sind Schiiten und keinesfalls den Sunniten oder den saudi-arabischen Wahhabi-Sunniten zuzurechen (die das Gros der Al-Quaida-Kämpfer stellen, s. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabiten und http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaida ); die Houthi-Rebellen haben nicht nur keinerlei Verbindung zu Gruppen, die Al-Qaida nahe stehen, sie würden sogar eher von denen bekämpft.
Um die US-Aktivitäten in dieser Region zu unterstützen, haben die britische und die amerikanische Presse in letzter Zeit den Jemen als “Heimat der Vorfahren” Osama bin Ladens hochgespielt. Bin Laden stammt aus der Familie eines angesehenen saudi- arabischen Milliardärs; die westlichen Medien nutzen den historischen Zufall, dass bin Ladens Vater vor mehr als einem Jahrhundert in dem Teil der arabischen Halbinsel geboren wurde, der jetzt die Islamische Republik Jemen ist, dazu aus, Osama bin Laden eine aktive Rolle in dem Konflikt im Jemen anzudichten, um eine äußerst fragwürdige Verbindung zwischen dem südasiatischen Krieg in Afghanistan und Pakistan und dem Eingreifen der Streitkräfte Saudi-Arabiens und der USA in die Kämpfe im Jemen herzustellen.
Bereits im Jahr 2002 entsandte das Pentagon etwa 100 Elite-Soldaten – die nach einigen Presseberichten von der Spezialtruppe “Green Berets” (s. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces_Command_%28Airborne%29 ) gekommen sein sollen – in den Jemen, um sie das Militär des Landes ausbilden zu lassen. Diese Maßnahme erfolgte zwei Jahre nach dem Selbstmordanschlag auf den Navy-Zerstörer “USS Cole” im Hafen Aden im Südjemen (s. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_%28DDG-67%29 ), der Al-Qaida angelastet und mit von Drohnen vorgetragenen Raketenangriffen auf (angeblich) identifizierte Al-Qaida-Führer beantwortet wurde; Washington begründete seine Aktivitäten im Jemen als Reaktion auf dieses Ereignis und auf die Anschläge in New York und in Washington D.C. im Jahr 2001.
Der gegenwärtig zur Aufstandsbekämpfung im Jemen mit US-Unterstützung geführte Krieg steht in einem ganz anderen Kontext und hat nichts mit der angeblichen Bedrohung durch Al-Qaida zu tun; er ist ein integraler Bestandteil der Strategie, den Krieg in Afghanistan in konzentrischen Kreisen auf ganz Süd- und Zentralasien, den Kaukasus, den Persischen Golf, Südostasien, den Golf von Aden, das Horn von Afrika und die arabische Halbinsel auszuweiten. Der ungeduldig erwartete Abgang des US-Präsidenten George W. Bush hat vielleicht seinen “globalen Krieg gegen den Terror” beendet; der läuft aber unter der Bezeichnung “Notfall-Operationen im Ausland” weiter, und außer dem Namen hat sich nichts geändert.
Am 13. Dezember sagte General David Petraeus – der Chef des Central Command, des Pentagon-Regionalkommandos, das für die Kriege im Irak, in Afghanistan und in Pakistan zuständig ist – dem (saudi-arabischen) TV-Sender Al Arabiya: “Die Vereinigten Staaten kümmern sich um Sicherheit des Jemen im Rahmen der militärischen Zusammenarbeit, die Amerika all seinen Verbündeten in der Region anbietet.” Er betonte, dass sich die USSchiffe in den nationalen Gewässern des Jemen nicht nur zur Kontrolle aufhalten, sondern auch die Versorgung der Houthi-Rebellen mit Waffen verhindern sollen”. (s. http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=100&SubID=1668&MainCat=3 ) [4]
Diesmal wird die Zeitungsente von der Bedrohung durch Al-Qaida/bin Laden verwendet, um die Ausweitung der US-Militärinterventionen auf die arabischen Halbinsel zu rechtfertigen.
Der YEMEN POST vom 13. Dezember schrieb, das Medienbüro der Houthis habe “die Vereinigten Staaten beschuldigt, am Krieg gegen die Houthis teilzunehmen” und Fotos von US-Kampfjets veröffentlicht, die an den Bombenangriffen in der Provinz Saada im Nordjemen beteiligt waren.
Das Medienbüro berichtete von über zwanzig US-Bombenangriffen, die unter Satellitenkontrolle durchgeführt worden seien. [5]
Die westliche Presse gibt sich wieder dafür her, die Houthis, die der schiitischen Sekte der Zaiditen angehören und sich stark von den iranischen Schiiten unterscheiden, verschwörerischer Beziehungen zu Teheran zu bezichtigen. Sogar Mitglieder der US-Regierung haben bis heute keine Beweise dafür, dass der Iran die jemenitischen Rebellen unterstützt oder sogar mit Waffen versorgt. Das wird sich bald ändern, wenn die Regierung des Jemen die “Anregung” des Generals Petraeus aufnimmt (und “iranische” Waffen findet); Washington wird pflichtschuldigst die Behauptung aufgreifen, dass der Iran auch im Jemen seine schiitischen Brüder bewaffnet, wie er es im Libanon getan haben soll.
Der Jemen wird das Schlachtfeld für einen Stellvertreter-Krieg zwischen dem Iran auf der einen und den Vereinigten Staaten und Saudi-Arabien auf der anderen Seite werden; die zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen der beiden letztgenannten gehören zu den engsten und stabilsten in der ganzen Ära nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg.
In einem Leitartikel, der vor fünf Tagen in der TEHRAN TIMES erschien, werden alle Parteien im Jemen-Konflikt – die (jemenitische) Regierung, die Rebellen und Saudi-Arabien der Rücksichtslosigkeit beschuldigt; außerdem wird folgende Warnung ausgesprochen: “Die Geschichte liefert uns ein gutes Beispiel. Saudi-Arabien hat extremistische Gruppen in Afghanistan finanziert, und zwei Jahrzehnte nach dem Abzug der sowjetischen Armee aus diesem Land greifen die Flammen des Afghanistan-Krieges auf die Verbündeten Saudi-Arabiens über. Ein ähnliches Szenario entwickelt sich jetzt im Jemen.” (s. http://tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=209547 ) [6]
Der Vergleich zwischen dem Jemen und Afghanistan spielte darauf an, dass Riad jetzt schon zum zweiten Mal Hand in Hand mit den Vereinigten Staaten den saudiarabischen Wahhabismus zu exportieren versucht, um seinen politischen Einfluss auszuweiten.
Saudi-Arabien will seine eigene Version des Extremismus auch im Jemen durchsetzen, wie es das schon früher in Afghanistan und Pakistan versucht hat und zur Zeit auch im Irak versucht. Ohne jeden Einwand der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer westlichen Verbündeten werden sich die Saudis und die mit ihnen verbündeten Monarchien am Persischem Golf von den westlichen Waffen im Wert von 100 Milliarden Dollar, die im Lauf der nächsten fünf Jahre in den Mittleren Osten verkauft werden sollen, den größten Anteil sichern. “Im Zentrum dieser Waffeneinkaufsorgie steht zweifellos das US-Waffenpaket im Wert von 20 Milliarden Dollar, das die sechs Staaten des Golf Cooperation Council (des Rates für Zusammenarbeit am Golf) – Saudi-Arabien, die Vereinigten Emirate, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar und Bahrain – in den nächsten zehn Jahren anschaffen wollen.” [7] Saudi-Arabien verfügt bereits über modernste britische und französische Kampfflugzeuge und ein US-Raketenabwehrsystem.
Die weiter vorn aus dem iranischen Leitartikel zitierte Warnung vor den “der Flammen des Afghanistan-Krieges” wird durch die COMISAF Initial Assessment (die anfängliche Bewertung des ISAF-Kommandeurs) bestätigt, die General Stanley McChrystal, der Oberkommandierende der US- und NATO-Streitkräfte in Afghanistan, am 30. August 2009 abgegeben hat und die von der WASHINGTON POST am 21. September mit den redaktionellen Änderungen des Pentagons veröffentlicht wurde. Das 66-seitige Dokument diente dem Präsidenten Barack Obama als Vorlage für seine am 1. Dezember verkündete Entscheidung, 33.000 zusätzliche US-Soldaten nach Afghanistan zu entsenden. (s. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html )
In der Bewertung stellt McChrystal fest: “Die Hauptgruppen der Aufständischen sind in der Reihenfolge der Bedrohung, die von ihnen ausgeht: die Taliban, deren Führung in Quetta, einer Stadt in der pakistanischen Provinz Balutschistan sitzt (QST), das Haqqani-Netzwerk (HQN) und Gulbuddins Hezb-e Islami (HiG).”
Die letzten beiden sind nach ihren Gründern und gegenwärtigen Führern Jalaluddin Haqqani (s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalaluddin_Haqqani ) und Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (s. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar ) benannt, den zwei Mudschaheddin-Lieblingen der CIA aus 80er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts. Stellvertretender Direktor der CIA war von 1986-1989 Robert Gates, der jetzt als US-Verteidigungsminister für den Krieg in Afghanistan verantwortlich ist. Und neuerdings auch für den Krieg im Jemen.
In seinem 1996 veröffentlichten Buch “From the Shadows” (Über die Schatten) rühmt sich Gates: “Die CIA erzielte mit verdeckten Aktionen wichtige Erfolge. Die wahrscheinlich folgenreichsten in Afghanistan, wo die CIA über ihre Verbindungen (zum pakistanischen Geheimdienst ISI) die Mudschaheddin mit Milliarden Dollars für Waffen und Nachschub versorgte.” [8]
Die NEW YORK TIMES enthüllte 2008 diese Details: “In den 80er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts wurde Jalaluddin Haqqani als “einzigartige Stütze” der CIA gefeiert und erhielt für seinen Kampf gegen die sowjetische Armee in Afghanistan mehrere zehntausend Dollar in Cash; das berichte Steve Coll in seinem jüngsten Buch ‘”The Bin Laden’s” (Die Familie Bin Laden). Damals half und schützte Haqqani den (Al-Qaida-Gründer) Osama bin Laden, der eine eigene Miliz zum Kampf gegen die sowjetischen Streitkräfte aufbaute.” (s. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/world/asia/09pstan.html?_r=1 [9] Coll ist auch der Autor des Buches “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001″ (Geisterkriege: Die geheime Geschichte der CIA, Afghanistans und Bin Ladens von der sowjetischen Invasion bis zum 10. September 2001).
Haqqanis Kollege Hekmatyar “erhielt über ISI, den pakistanischen Geheimdienst, Millionen Dollars von der CIA. Gulbuddins Hezb-e-Islami (s. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezb-e_Eslami ) wurde am stärksten von Pakistan und Saudi-Arabien unterstützt und arbeitete mit Tausenden Mudschaheddin zusammen, die aus dem Ausland nach Afghanistan gekommen waren.” (s. dazu auch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar ) [10]
Im Mai 2009 sagte der äußerst pro-amerikanische pakistanische Präsident Asif Ali Zardari in der amerikanischen TV-Sendung NBC NEWS, die Taliban sind “ein Teil unserer Vergangenheit und Ihrer Vergangenheit, und der ISI und die CIA schufen sie gemeinsam. Die Taliban sind eine Plage, die wir zusammen geschaffen haben.” [11]
Am 11. September 2001 gab es auf der Welt nur drei Staaten, die das Taliban-Regime in Afghanistan anerkannt hatten: Pakistan, Saudi-Arabien und die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate. US-Präsident George W. Bush nannte sofort danach sieben Staaten, die angeblich die Terroristen unterstützt hätten, als Kandidaten für eine potenzielle Vergeltung: Kuba, den Iran, den Irak, Libyen, Nordkorea, den Sudan und Syrien. Nur der Sudan, der Osama bin Laden 1996 ausgewiesen hat, hatte überhaupt irgendwelche erkennbaren Verbindungen zu Al-Qaida. Von den neunzehn Beschuldigten, die am 11. September die Flugzeuge entführt haben sollen, stammten fünfzehn aus Saudi-Arabien, zwei aus den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten, einer aus Ägypten und einer aus dem Libanon.
Pakistan und Saudi-Arabien sind nach wie vor sehr geschätzte politische und militärische Verbündete der USA, und die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate stellen Truppen, die unter NATO-Befehl in Afghanistan dienen.
Es ist wahrscheinlich unmöglich, den genauen Zeitpunkt zu bestimmen, zu dem von den USA unterstützte, selbsternannte “heilige Krieger” – die dazu ausgebildet wurden, Terroranschläge in Städten zu verüben und Passagierflugzeuge abzuschießen – aufhören, Freiheitskämpfer zu sein und zu Terroristen werden. Es ist aber ziemlich sicher, dass dies geschieht, wenn sie Washington nicht länger von Nutzen sind. Ein Terrorist, der amerikanischen Interessen dient, ist ein Freiheitskämpfer; ein Freiheitskämpfer, der das nicht mehr tut, ist ein Terrorist.
Jahrzehnte lang standen der African National Congress Nelson Mandelas und die Palestine Liberation Organization Yassir Arafats an der Spitze der Liste, in der das US-Außenministerium Terroristengruppen registriert. Als der Kalte Krieg kaum beendet war, wurden Mandela und Arafat wie Gerry Adams von der (nordirischen) Sinn Fein ins Weiße Haus eingeladen. Das erste erhielt den Friedensnobelpreis 1993 und der zweite 1994.
Wenn ein selbst ernannter “heiliger Krieger” in den 80er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts Saudi-Arabien oder Ägypten verließ und nach Pakistan ging, um gegen die afghanische Regierung und ihre sowjetischen Verbündeten zu kämpfen, war er in den Augen der US-Amerikaner ein Freiheitskämpfer. Wenn er anschließend in den Libanon kam, war er ein Terrorist. Wenn er Anfang der 90er Jahre des letzten Jahrhunderts nach Bosnien ging, war er wieder ein Freiheitskämpfer. Wenn er danach im Gaza-Streifen oder im Westjordanland auftauchte, galt er wieder als Terrorist. Im russischen Nordkaukasus war er ein neugeborener Freiheitskämpfer, wenn er aber 2001 nach Afghanistan zurückkehrte, wurde er wieder zum Terroristen.
Je nachdem, wie der Wind in Foggy Bottom (einem Stadtteil Washingtons) weht, ist ein bewaffneter Separatist des Baloch-Volkes in Pakistan oder ein Kashmiri in Indien entweder ein Freiheitskämpfer oder ein Terrorist.
Noch 1998 beschrieb Robert Gelbard, der US-Sondergesandte für den Balkan, die Kosovo Liberation Army / KLA, die gegen die jugoslawische Regierung kämpfte, als eine Terrororganisation: “Ich erkenne einen Terroristen, wenn ich einen sehe, und diese Männer sind Terroristen.” [12]
Im Februar des nächsten Jahres lud die US-Außenminister Madeleine Albright fünf Mitgliedern der KLA, darunter deren Chef Hashim Thaci, nach Rambouillet in Frankreich ein, und stellte Jugoslawien ein Ultimatum, von dem sie wusste, dass es abgelehnt und zum Krieg führen würde. Im nächsten Jahr begleitete sie Thaci auf einer persönlichen Einladungstour ins Hauptquartier der Vereinten Nationen und ins US-Außenministerium und nahm ihn als Gast zum Parteitag nach Los Angeles mit, auf dem der Präsidentschaftskandidat der Demokraten nominiert wurde.
Am 1. November dieses Jahres hatte Thaci, der jetzt Premierminister eines Pseudo- Staates ist, den nur 63 der 192 Nationen der Welt anerkannt haben, den ehemaligen US-Präsidenten Bill Clinton zu Gast, um ihn durch die Enthüllung eines Clinton-Denkmals für seine Verbrechen zu ehren und seiner Eitelkeit zu huldigen.
Von der Mitte der 70er Jahre bis 1991 unterstützte Washington bewaffnete Separatisten in Eritrea in ihrem Kampf gegen die äthiopische Regierung.
Zur Zeit bewaffnen die Vereinigten Staaten Somalia und Djibouti für einen Krieg gegen das unabhängige Eritrea. Das Pentagon hat seine erste dauerhafte Militärbasis in Afrika in Djibouti errichtet; dort hat es 2.000 Soldaten stationiert, die mit Hilfe von Drohnen Somalia und den Jemen kontrollieren.
Balzac lässt sein Romanhelden Vautrin sagen: “Es gibt keine Prinzipien, es gibt nur Ereignisse; es gibt auch keine Gesetze, sondern nur Verhältnisse.”
Jetzt lernen die Jemeniten die Gesetze des Dschungels kennen, nach denen das Pentagon und das Weiße Haus handeln. Nach dem Irak und Afghanistan, wo Stanley McChrystal, der Spezialist für Aufstandsbekämpfung, seine Techniken perfektioniert hat, gehört jetzt auch der Jemen zu den Staaten, in denen das Pentagon auf diese spezielle Art Krieg führt – mit zahlreichen Massakern an Zivilisten und anderen so genannten Kollateralschäden – wie Kolumbien, Mali, Pakistan, die Philippinen, Somalia und Uganda.
Anmerkungen
1) BBC News, 14. Dezember 2009
2) Press TV, 14. Dezember 2009
3) Daily Telegraph, 13. Dezember 2009
4)Yemen Post, 13. Dezember 2009
5) ebd.
6) Tehran Times, 10. Dezember 2009
7) United Press International, 25. August 2009
6/11
8) BBC News, 1. Dezember 2008
9) The New York Times, 9. September 2008
10) Wikipedia
11) Press Trust of India, 11. Mai 2009
12) BBC News, 28. Juni 1998
Afghanistan: precedenti storici e antecedenti
Stop NATO
Dicembre 20, 2009
Afghanistan: precedenti storici e antecedenti
Rick Rozoff
Traduzione per http://www.comedonchisciotte.org a cura di Concetta Di Lorenzo e Giovanni Piccirillo
http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6594
———-
Gli Stati Uniti (e la Gran Bretagna) cominciarono a bombardare la capitale afgana di Kabul, il 7 ottobre 2001 con missili da crociera Tomahawk lanciati da navi da guerra e sottomarini nonché con bombe sganciate da aerei da guerra; poco dopo le forze speciali americane iniziarono le operazioni di terra, un compito che è stato poi condotto dalle unità regolari dell’esercito e della Marina. I bombardamenti e le operazioni di combattimento a terra continuano da più di otto anni ed entrambi saranno intensificati a livelli record in breve tempo.
La combinazione delle forze degli Stati Uniti e della NATO rappresenterebbe un numero impressionante, superiore a 150.000 soldati. Per fare un confronto, a partire dal settembre di quest’anno ci sono stati circa 120.000 soldati americani in Iraq e solo una piccola manciata di personale di altre nazioni, quelli assegnati alle missioni di addestramento della NATO – Iraq, che si trovano ancora con loro.
“Il segretario Gates ha dichiarato che i conflitti nei quali siamo coinvolti devono essere molto in alto nel nostro ordine del giorno. Vuole assicurarsi che non stiamo sprecando le risorse necessarie a un qualche ignoto conflitto futuro. Vuole assicurarsi che il Pentagono possa essere letteralmente sul piede di guerra… per la prima volta da decenni, gli astri politici ed economici sono allineati per una revisione fondamentale del modo in cui il Pentagono opera”.
———-
Negli ultimi dieci anni i cittadini degli Stati Uniti e altre nazioni occidentali, e loro malgrado anche i cittadini della maggior parte del mondo, si sono abituati a vedere Washington, i suoi alleati militari in Europa e quelli nominati come avamposti armati della periferia della “comunità euro-atlantica”, impegnarsi in aggressioni armate in tutto il mondo.
Le Guerre contro la Jugoslavia, l’Afghanistan e l’ Iraq, nonché le numerose operazioni di minore profilo militare in vari paesi, come la Colombia, lo Yemen, le Filippine, la Costa d’Avorio, la Somalia, il Ciad, la Repubblica Centrafricana, l’ Ossezia del Sud e altrove, sono diventate una prerogativa indiscussa della Stati Uniti e i suoi partner della NATO. Tanto che molti hanno dimenticato come le stesse azioni sarebbero considerate se fossero tentate da paesi non occidentali.
Trenta anni fa, questo 24 dicembre, le prime truppe sovietiche entrarono in Afghanistan in sostegno del governo di una nazione vicina, per combattere una rivolta armata con base in Pakistan surrettiziamente (poi apertamente) sostenuta dagli Stati Uniti.
Durante gli ultimi giorni dello stesso anno, il 1979, e i primi di quello seguente, il numero delle truppe sovietiche crebbe di circa 50.000 soldati.
Il Grande Gioco
Vale la pena notare a questo proposito che nel 1839 la Gran Bretagna invase l’Afghanistan, con 21.000 truppe proprie e indiani, nonchè nel 1878 con un numero doppio del precedente, per contrastare l’influenza russa nel paese, in quello che è diventato famose come “il Grande Gioco”.
Il 23 gennaio 1980 il presidente statunitense James Earl (Jimmy) Carter ha dichiarato nel suo ultimo discorso sullo Stato dell’Unione che “Le implicazioni dell’invasione sovietica dell’ Afghanistan potrebbero rappresentare la minaccia più grave per la pace dopo la seconda guerra mondiale.”
Quando l’Unione Sovietica ha iniziato il ritiro delle sue forze dalla nazione -la prima parte dal 15 maggio al 16 agosto 1988 e l’ultima dal 15 novembre 1988 al 15 febbraio 1989 – il numero delle truppe era arrivato a poco più di 100.000.
Il 1° dicembre del 2009, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Barack Obama ha annunciato che ci sarà un invio di 30.000 nuove truppe in Afghanistan, in aggiunta alle 68.000 già in loco, e due giorni dopo il segretario alla Difesa Robert Gates ha detto al Congresso che “le forze saliranno ad almeno 33.000, quando le truppe di supporto saranno incluse” [1]
Ciò vuol dire che si arriverà a più di 100.000 soldati. Insieme a militari privati e a fornitori per la sicurezza il cui numero è ancora maggiore.
Le truppe sovietiche sono state in Afghanistan poco più di nove anni. Le truppe americane sono ora al nono anno di operazioni da combattimento nel paese e in meno di quattro settimane raggiungeranno il loro decimo anno di guerra.
Il 25 novembre il portavoce della Casa Bianca Robert Gibbs, ha assicurato al popolo della sua nazione che “siamo al nono anno del nostro impegno in Afghanistan. Non abbiamo intenzione di rimanere qui per altri otto o nove anni.” [2] L’implicazione è che gli Stati Uniti potrebbero condurre una guerra in Afghanistan che potrebbe durare fino al 2017. Per sedici anni.
La guerra più lunga nella storia americana prima di quella attuale è stata in Vietnam. Consiglieri militari Usa sono stati presenti nel paese dalla fine degli anni ‘50 in poi e operazioni segrete sono state portate avanti fino agli anni ‘60, ma solo l’anno dopo il programmato incidente del Golfo di Tonchino – 1965 – il Pentagono ha dato inizio alle principali operazioni di combattimento nel sud e regolari bombardamenti nel nord. L’ultima unità americana di combattimento lasciò il Vietnam del Sud nel 1972, sette anni più tardi.
Gli Stati Uniti (e la Gran Bretagna) cominciarono a bombardare la capitale afgana di Kabul il 7 ottobre 2001 con missili da crociera Tomahawk lanciati da navi da guerra e sottomarini e con bombe sganciate da aerei da guerra; poco dopo le forze speciali americane hanno iniziato le operazioni di terra, un compito che è stato condotto da allora da unità regolari dell’esercito e della Marina. I bombardamenti e le operazioni di combattimento a terra continuano da più di otto anni ed entrambi saranno intensificati a livelli record in breve tempo.
Dalla fine della scorsa estate, gli Stati Uniti e i suoi alleati della NATO hanno lanciato missili regolari drone e sferrato assalti con elicotteri d’attacco all’interno del Pakistan. Se i sovietici avessero tentato di fare altrettanto trenta anni fa – quando i loro confini erano minacciati – la risposta di Washington avrebbe potuto innescare una terza guerra mondiale.
L’URSS non schierò le truppe di nessuna delle nazioni alleate del Patto di Varsavia in Afghanistan durante gli anni ‘80. In una ironia storica che merita più attenzione di quanto ne abbia ricevuto – nessuna – ognuna di queste nazioni ha ora forze armate al servizio della NATO per uccidere e morire nel teatro di guerra afghano: Bulgaria, Repubblica Ceca, Ungheria, Polonia, Romania, Slovacchia e l’ex Repubblica Democratica Tedesca (accorpate in una Repubblica federale unita che ha lì quasi 4.500 soldati di stanza).
Sono tra le truppe di quasi 50 nazioni che servono o che si apprestano a servire sotto il comando NATO sul fronte di guerra in Afghanistan-Pakistan, che comprende le seguenti nazioni dell’Alleanza e molte altre nei suoi programmi di collaborazione.
Membri della NATO:
Albania
Belgio
Gran Bretagna
Bulgaria
Canada
Croazia
Repubblica Ceca
Danimarca
Estonia
Francia
Germania
Grecia
Ungheria
Islanda
Italia
Lettonia
Lituania
Lussemburgo
Paesi Bassi
Norvegia
Polonia
Portogallo
Romania
Slovacchia
Slovenia
Spagna
Turchia
Gli Stati Uniti (35.000 soldati, con ben oltre a venire)
Collaborazione per la Pace / Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC):
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bosnia
Finlandia
Georgia
Irlanda
Repubblica di Macedonia
Montenegro
Svezia
Svizzera (ritirato l’anno scorso)
Ucraina
Nazioni di Contatto:
Australia
Giappone (forze navali)
Nuova Zelanda
Corea del Sud
Adriatic Charter (sovrapposizioni con il Partenariato per la Pace):
Albania
Bosnia
Croazia
Repubblica di Macedonia
Montenegro
Iniziativa di collaborazione di Istanbul:
Emirati Arabi Uniti
Commissione Trilaterale Afghanistan-Pakistan- NATO :
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Varie:
Colombia
Mongolia
Singapore
L’elenco di cui sopra comprende sette delle quindici ex repubbliche sovietiche (un altro sviluppo degno di considerazione), con la Moldavia dopo quest’anno di “Twitter Revolution” e il Kazakistan dove, nel mese di settembre, l’ambasciatore statunitense ha fatto pressione sul governo per le truppe, i candidati per le implementazioni nell’ambito del Partenariato per gli obblighi di Pace. (Entrambi avevano in precedenza inviato truppe in Iraq). La loro partecipazione avrebbe portato al 60% gli ex stati sovietici che hanno truppe impegnate sotto la NATO in Afghanistan. Con l’aggiunta della Moldavia, ogni nazione europea (esclusi i microstati come Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino e Città del Vaticano), tranne la Bielorussia, Cipro, Malta, la Russia e la Serbia, avrà forze militari in servizio in Afghanistan sotto la NATO.
Mai nella storia mondiale della guerra si sono avuti contingenti militari da così tante nazioni – cinquanta o più – in servizio in un unico teatro di guerra. In una sola nazione. Truppe da cinque continenti, Oceania e Medio Oriente. [3]
Anche la coalizione putativa dei volenterosi cucita insieme da Stati Uniti e Gran Bretagna dopo l’invasione dell’Iraq nel marzo del 2003 e finchè le truppe sono stati riprese per la riconversione in Afghanistan, consisteva solo di forze militari di trentuno nazioni: Stati Uniti, Gran Bretagna, Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaigian, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croazia, Repubblica Ceca, Danimarca, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Ungheria, Giappone, Italia, Kazakistan, Lettonia, Lituania, Macedonia, Moldavia, Mongolia, Polonia, Romania, Slovacchia, Slovenia, Sud Corea, Spagna, Thailandia e Ucraina. Ventidue di queste trentuno erano nazioni dell’ex blocco sovietico (l’Albania alla lontana) o ex repubbliche jugoslave che avevano da poco (1999) aderito alla NATO o erano in corso di preparazione per l’integrazione, o in altre maniere, con il blocco.
Le ultime tre principali guerre nel mondo- quelle in e contro la Jugoslavia, l’ Afghanistan e l’Iraq – sono state utilizzate come terreno di prova e allenamento per l’espansione della NATO globale.
Il consolidamento di una forza di risposta internazionale rapida (attacco) e l’occupazione militare sotto il controllo della NATO, è stato ulteriormente avanzato questa settimana dal discorso dell’aumento di truppe di Obama del 1° [Dicembre] e successivi sforzi del Segretario di Stato americano, Hillary Clinton e il segretario generale della NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen per reclutare più truppe alleate durante la riunione appena conclusa dei ministri degli esteri della NATO (e affini).
Il 4 dicembre “un alto funzionario della Nato” ha detto … che almeno 25 paesi invieranno un totale di circa 7.000 ulteriori forze in Afghanistan il prossimo anno ‘con ulteriori altre a venire’, mentre il segretario di Stato degli Usa Hillary Rodham Clinton ha cercato di rafforzare la risolutezza degli alleati. ” [4] Al vertice della NATO a Bruxelles vi erano anche un imprecisato numero di ministri degli Esteri dei paesi non appartenenti alla NATO che forniscono truppe per la guerra in Afghanistan, alti comandanti militari degli eserciti USA e NATO, il generale Stanley McChrystal e il ministro degli Esteri afghano Rangeen Dadfar Spanta.
7.000 e più truppe della NATO con “ulteriori altre a venire”, aggiunte a circa 42.000 soldati non americani attualmente in servizio con la NATO e, allo stesso modo, 35.000 soldati americani, vorrebbe dire almeno 85.000 soldati sotto il comando della NATO, anche senza le 33.000 nuove truppe Usa dirette in Afghanistan. Il più grande dispiegamento di forze all’estero del blocco prima di questo è stato in Kosovo nel 1999, quando l’Alleanza guidata da Kosovo Force (KFOR), era composta da 50.000 soldati di 39 nazioni. [5]
La combinazione degli eserciti degli Stati Uniti e della NATO rappresenterebbe un numero impressionante, superiore a 150.000 soldati. A titolo di confronto, a partire dal settembre di quest’anno ci sono stati circa 120.000 soldati americani in Iraq e solo una piccola manciata di personale di altre nazioni, quelli assegnati alla Training Mission NATO – Iraq, ancora con loro.
Tra gli Stati membri della NATO, il Ministro italiano della Difesa Ignazio La Russa, ha recentemente annunciato un aumento di 1.000 uomini, portando il totale della nazione a quasi 4.500, il 50% in più di quello che era stato in precedenza di stanza in Iraq.
La Polonia invierà altri 600-700 soldati, che, sommati a quelli già in Afghanistan, costituirà la più grande aggregazione polacca di spiegamento militare all’estero nel periodo post-Guerra Fredda e il più alto numero di truppe sempre schierato al di fuori dell’Europa nella storia della nazione.
La Gran Bretagna fornirà altri 500 soldati, e il suo totale aumenterà a circa 10.000.
Il ministro della Difesa bulgaro Nikolay Mladenov ha detto la scorsa settimana che “c’è una forte possibilità che il paese aumenterà il suo contingente militare in Afghanistan.” [6] Per indicare la natura degli impegni che i nuovi Stati membri della NATO si addossano quando si uniscono all’Alleanza e quali diventano allora le loro priorità, tre giorni prima Mladenov, parlando dei vincoli di bilancio immessi sul forze armate a causa della crisi finanziaria, ha affermato che “possiamo tagliare alcune altre voci del bilancio delle forze armate, ma ci saranno sempre abbastanza soldi per le missioni all’estero.” [7]
Washington ha anche fatto pressioni sulla Croazia, che è diventata un membro effettivo del blocco lo scorso aprile, affinché fornisca più truppe e il Primo Ministro Jadranka Kosor si affrettò a promettere che “la Croazia, essendo un membro della NATO, avrebbe adempiuto ai suoi obblighi”. [8]
Il Ministro della Difesa della Repubblica ceca, Martin Bartak, ha parlato dopo il discorso di Obama all’inizio di questa settimana e ha minacciato il parlamento ceco, affermando “che dovrà essere spiegato agli alleati perché la Repubblica Ceca non vuole prendere parte ai rinforzi mentre la Slovacchia e la Gran Bretagna, per esempio, rafforzeranno i loro contingenti ….” [9]
La Slovacchia ha annunciato che farà più che raddoppiare le sue forze in Afghanistan.
Il parlamento tedesco ha appena rinnovato per un altro anno il dispiegamento di quasi 4.500 soldati in Afghanistan, il massimo consentito dal Bundestag, anche se si svolgono dibattiti per aumentare tale numero a 7.000, dopo una conferenza sull’Afghanistan a Londra il 28 gennaio. Le forze armate tedesche nel paese sono impegnate nelle loro prime operazioni di guerra dalla Seconda Guerra Mondiale.
Un telegiornale il 3 dicembre ha detto che l’ambasciatore Usa in Turchia James Jeffrey faceva pressioni su Ankara perchè fornisse un “numero specifico” di truppe e perché fosse “più flessibile” [10] sul modo in cui esse saranno impiegate, il che significa che la Turchia deve abbandonare i cosiddetti vincoli di combattimento e impegnarsi in combattimenti attivi insieme ai suoi alleati della NATO.
Dopo un incontro con il vice presidente degli Stati Uniti Joseph Biden il 4 dicembre, il Primo Ministro ungherese Gyorgy Gordon Bajnai ha promesso di inviare 200 soldati in più nella zona di guerra del sud asiatico, con un incremento del 60%, visto che l’Ungheria ne ha lì attualmente 360.
Per quanto riguarda gli Stati partner della NATO, il Vice Assistente Segretario alla Difesa USA per la Russia, l’Ucraina e l’Eurasia Celeste Wallander è stata in Armenia per garantire il primo dispiegamento militare della nazione in Afghanistan, l’opera del primo rappresentante speciale per il Caucaso e l’Asia centrale della NATO Robert Simmons [11], che ha anche ottenuto il raddoppio delle truppe dal vicino Azerbaigian e un impegno di ben 1.000 soldati georgiani dal prossimo anno.
Nel corso di una conferenza stampa al quartier generale della NATO, il primo giorno del recente consiglio di guerra afgano dell’Alleanza, il 3 dicembre, il capo del blocco Anders Fogh Rasmussen ha espresso gratitudine agli Emirati Arabi Uniti per l’invio delle truppe in Afghanistan e “l’ospitalità… della Conferenza Internazionale sulle relazioni NATO-Emirati Arabi Uniti e per il futuro della Iniziativa di Cooperazione di Istanbul lo scorso ottobre “. [12]
L’ Iniziativa di Collaborazione di Istanbul è stata varata in occasione del vertice della NATO in Turchia nel 2004 per aggiornare le partnership militari con i membri del Dialogo Mediterraneo (Algeria, Egitto, Israele, Giordania, Mauritania, Marocco e Tunisia) e il Consiglio di Collaborazione del Golfo (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Arabia Saudita e gli Emirati Arabi Uniti). [13]
Un’agenzia informativa militare degli Stati Uniti ha pubblicato un articolo il 3 dicembre che ha esaminato la Quadrennial Defense Review che viene attualmente deliberata al Pentagono.
Il vice segretario alla Difesa William J. Lynn III, che prima di assumere quella carica è stato vice presidente delle Operazioni di Governo e della Strategia per Raytheon, si è vantato che “La Quadrennial Defense Review … sarà diversa da qualsiasi altra: la prima ad essere guidata con attuali requisiti di tempo di guerra, a bilanciare le capacità convenzionali e non convenzionali, e ad accettare un ‘intero approccio di governo’ per la sicurezza nazionale …. Questa è una QDR che sarà un punto di riferimento”.
Lynn ha anche detto che “il segretario Gates ha chiarito che i conflitti in cui ci troviamo, debbano essere al primo posto del nostro ordine del giorno. Vuole assicurarsi che non stiamo abbandonando potenzialità ora necessarie per quelle che saranno necessarie per qualche ignoto conflitto futuro. Egli vuole assicurarsi che il Pentagono è veramente sul piede di guerra… Per la prima volta da decenni, le stelle politiche ed economiche sono allineate per una revisione fondamentale del modo in cui il Pentagono opera”. [14]
La guerra di oltre otto anni in Afghanistan non sta per finire nel 2011, nonostante le asserzioni di Obama, né sarà l’ultima del suo genere. Essa continuerà ad inghiottire il vicino Pakistan con la minaccia di riversarsi anche in Asia centrale e in Iran.
La crisi che il mondo affronta non è solo la guerra nel Asia del Sud: è la guerra stessa. Più in particolare, l’incoscienza di auto-proclamarsi l’unica superpotenza e l’unico blocco militare, conduce ad arrogare a se stessi il diritto esclusivo di minacciare le nazioni di tutto il mondo con l’aggressività militare.
Se tale politica non viene portata a una fine da parte della comunità internazionale reale – più di sei settimi di umanità oltre il più grande mondo euro-atlantico (come ritiene se stesso) – l’Afghanistan non sarà l’ultimo fronte di guerra di questo secolo, ma quello primo e prototipico. Indizi dicono che il peggio deve ancora venire
NOTE
1) New York Daily News, December 4, 2009
2) New York Times, November 26, 2009
3) Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army
Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army
4) Associated Press, December 4, 2009
5) U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History
Stop NATO, September 24, 2009
6) Sofia News Agency, November 26, 2009
7) Standart News, November 23, 2009
8) Xinhua News Agency, December 3, 2009
9) Czech News Agency, December 2, 2009
10) PanArmenian.net, December 3, 2009
11) Mr. Simmons’ Mission: NATO Bases From Balkans To Chinese Border
Stop NATO, March 4, 2009
12) Emirates News Agency, December 3, 2009
13) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul
Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul
14) American Forces Press Service, December 3, 2009
World’s Sole Military Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars
Stop NATO
December 21, 2009
World’s Sole Military Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars
Rick Rozoff
———-
With a census of slightly over 300 million in a world of almost seven billion people, the U.S. accounts for over 40 percent of officially acknowledged worldwide government military spending with a population that is only 4 percent of that of the earth’s. A 10-1 disparity.
In addition to its 1,445,000 active duty service members, the Pentagon can and does call upon 1.2 million National Guard and other reserve components. As many as 30% of troops that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq are mobilized reservists. The Army National Guard has activated over 400,000 soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began and in March of 2009 approximately 125,000 National Guard and other reserve personnel were on active duty.
The Defense Department also has over 800,000 civilian employees at home and deployed worldwide. The Pentagon, then, has more than 3.5 million people at its immediate disposal excluding private military contractors.
After allotting over a trillion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone and packing off more than two million of its citizens to the two nations, the U.S. military establishment and peace prize president have already laid the groundwork for yet more wars. Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric won’t be kept waiting.
———-
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10 the president of the United States appropriated for his country the title of “the world’s sole military superpower” and for himself “the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.”
This may well have been the first time that an American – and of course any – head of state in history boasted of his nation being the only uncontested military power on the planet and unquestionably the only time a Nobel Peace Prize recipient identified himself as presiding over not only a war but two wars simultaneously.
As to the appropriateness of laying such claims in the venue and on the occasion he did – accepting the world’s preeminent peace award before the Norwegian Nobel Committee – Barack Obama at least had the excuse of being perfectly accurate in his contentions.
He is in fact the commander-in-chief in charge of two major and several smaller wars and his nation is without doubt the first global military power which for decades has operated without constraints on five of six inhabited continents and has troops stationed in all six. United States armed forces personnel and weapons, including nuclear arms, are stationed at as many as 820 installations in scores of nations.
The U.S. has recently assigned thousands of troops to seven new bases in Bulgaria and Romania [1], deployed the first foreign troops to Israel in that nation’s history to run an interceptor missile radar facility in the Negev Desert [2], and last week signed a status of forces agreement with Poland for Patriot missiles (to be followed by previously ship-based Aegis Standard Missile-3 interceptors) and U.S. soldiers to be stationed there. The troops will be the first foreign forces based in Poland since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.
The U.S., whose current military budget is at Cold War, which is to say at the highest of post-World War II, levels, also officially accounts for over 41% of international military spending according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s report on 2008 figures: $607 billion of $1.464 trillion worldwide. On October 28 President Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act with a price tag of $680 billion, including $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That figure excludes military spending outside of the Department of Defense. The American government has for several decades been the standard-bearer in outsourcing to private sector contractors in every realm and the Pentagon is certainly no exception to the practice. According to some estimates, American military and military-related allotments in addition to the formal Pentagon budget can bring annual U.S. defense spending as high as $1.16 trillion, almost half of official expenditures for all of the world’s 192 nations, including the U.S., last year.
With a census of slightly over 300 million in a world of almost seven billion people, the U.S. accounts for over 40 percent of officially acknowledged worldwide government military spending with a population that is only 4 percent of that of the earth’s. A 10-1 disparity.
The U.S. also has the world’s second largest standing army, over 1,445,000 men and women under arms according to estimates of earlier this year, second only to China with 2,255,000. China has a population of over 1.325 billion, more than four times that of America, and does not have a vast army of private contractors supplementing its armed forces. And of course unlike the U.S. it has no troops stationed abroad. India, with a population of 1.140 billion, has active duty troop strength smaller than that of the U.S. at 1,415,000.
The U.S. and Britain are possibly alone in the world in deploying reservists to war zones; this last February the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen acknowledged that 600,000 reserves have been called up to serve in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Central Command, in charge of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, since 2001. In addition to its 1,445,000 active duty service members, the Pentagon can and does call upon 1.2 million National Guard and other reserve components. As many as 30% of troops that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq are mobilized reservists. The Army National Guard has activated over 400,000 soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began and in March of 2009 approximately 125,000 National Guard and other reserve personnel were on active duty.
The Defense Department also has over 800,000 civilian employees at home and deployed worldwide. The Pentagon, then, has more than 3.5 million people at its immediate disposal excluding private military contractors.
In the last 48 hours two unprecedented thresholds have been crossed. On the morning of December 19 the U.S. Senate met in a rare Saturday morning session to approve a $636.3 billion military budget for next year. The vote was 88-10, as the earlier vote by the House of Representatives on December 16 was 395-34. In both cases the negative votes were not necessarily an indication of opposition to war spending but part of the labyrinthine American legislative practices of trade-offs, add-ons and deal-making on other, unrelated issues, what in the local vernacular are colorfully described as horse-trading and log-rolling among other choice terms. A no vote in the House or Senate, then, was not automatically a reflection of anti-war or even fiscally conservative sentiments.
The Pentagon appropriation included another $101 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Obama signed the last formal Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations, worth $106 billion, in July), but did not include the first of several additional requests, what are termed emergency spending measures, for the Afghan war. The first such request is expected early next year, more than $30 billion for the additional 33,000 U.S. troops to be deployed to the war zone, which will increase the number of American forces there to over 100,000.
On the day of the Senate vote Bloomberg News cited the Congressional Research Service, which had tallied the numbers, in revealing that the funds apportioned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now pushed the total expenditure for both to over $1 trillion. “That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report.”
The new Pentagon spending plan “includes $2.5 billion to buy 10 additional Boeing Co. C-17 transports that weren’t requested by the Pentagon. Chicago-based Boeing also would benefit from $1.5 billion for 18 F/A-E/F Super Hornet fighters, nine more than the administration requested.”
Funding for military aircraft not even requested by the Defense Department and the White House or for larger numbers of them than were asked for is another curious component of the American body politic. That arms merchants (and not only domestic ones) place their own orders with the American people’s alleged representatives – the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, was senior vice president of Government Operations and Strategy for Raytheon Company prior to assuming his new post – is illustrated by the following excerpts from the same report:
“Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended April 6 that the C-17 program be terminated once Boeing delivers the last of 205 C-17s in late 2010. Boeing, the second-largest defense contractor, has said its plant in Long Beach, California, will shut down in 2011 without more orders.
“The budget also includes $465 million for the backup engine of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The engine is built by Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. and London-based Rolls Royce Plc. The administration earlier threatened to veto the entire defense bill if it contained any money for the engine.” [3]
The Pentagon and its chief Gates may win battles with the Congress and even the White House when they relate to the use of military force abroad, but against the weapons manufacturers and the congressmen whose election campaigns they contribute to the military brass will come off the losers.
In addition to the nearly two-thirds of a trillion-dollar annual Pentagon war chest, the ongoing trillion-dollar Broader Middle East war is a lucrative boon to the merchants of death and their political hangers-on.
On December 18 a story was posted on several American armed forces websites that U.S. soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan and Iraq 3.3 million times since the invasion of the first country in October of 2001. The report specifies that “more than 2 million men and women have shouldered those deployments, with 793,000 of them deploying more than once.”
The break-down according to services is as follows:
More than 1 million troops from the Army.
Over 389,900 from the Air Force.
Over 367,900 from the Navy.
More than 251,800 Marines.
This past October alone 172,800 soldiers, 31,500 airmen, 30,000 sailors and 20,900 Marines were dispatched to the two war zones. [4]
The bulk of the U.S.’s permanent global warfighting force may be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, but enough troops are left over to man newly acquired bases in Eastern Europe, remain in Middle East nations other than Iraq, be based on and transit through the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, take over seven new military bases in Colombia, run regional operations out of America’s first permanent base in Africa – Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where 2,400 personnel are stationed – and engage in counterinsurgency campaigns in the Philippines, Mali, Uganda, Yemen and Pakistan.
Recently a U.S. armed forces newspaper reported in an article titled “AFRICOM could add Marine Air Ground Task Force” that “A 1,000-strong Marine combat task force capable of rapidly deploying to hot spots could soon be at the disposal of the new U.S. Africa Command.”
The feature added that a Marine unit previously attached to the newly launched AFRICOM has “already deployed in support of training missions in Uganda and Mali,” whose armies are fighting the Lord’s Resistance Army and Tuareg rebels, respectively. [5]
In Yemen, Houthi rebel sources “accused the U.S. air force [on December 15] of joining attacks against them, and killing at least 120 people in a raid in the north of the poor Arab state.”
Their information office said “The savage crime committed by the U.S. air force shows the real face of the United States.” [6]
According to ABC News “On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday [December 17] against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen,” [7] to complement mounting missile attacks in Pakistan.
The Houthi rebels are religiously Shi’ia, so any attempt at exploiting an al-Qaeda rationale for bombing their villages is a subterfuge.
At the same time the Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and NATO Allied Air Component, General Roger Brady, fresh from a tour of inspection of the Caucasus nations of Azerbaijan and Georgia, was at the Adazi Training Base in Latvia to meet with the defense ministers of that nation, Estonia and Lithuania and plan “closer military cooperation in the security sector between the Baltic States and the USA which also included joint exercises in the Baltic region.” [9] All five nations mentioned above – Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania – border Russia.
During the same week’s summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) in Havana, Cuba, the host country’s president Raul Castro said of the latest Pentagon buildup in Colombia that “The deployment of [U.S.] military bases in the region is…an act of aggression against Latin America and the Caribbean.” [9]
Less than a week later the government of Colombia, the third largest recipient of American military aid in the world, announced it would construct a new military base near its border with Venezuela. “Defense Minister Gabriel Silva said [on December 18] that the base, located on the Guajira peninsula near the city of Nazaret, would have up to 1,000 troops. Two air battalions would also be activated at other border areas….Army Commander General Oscar Gonzalez meanwhile announced [the following day] that six air battalions were being activated, including two on the border with Venezuela.” [10]
After allotting over a trillion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone and packing off more than two million of its citizens to the two nations, the U.S. military establishment and peace prize president have already laid the groundwork for yet more wars. Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric won’t be kept waiting.
1) 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
2) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran
Stop NATO, November 5, 2009
3) Bloomberg News, December 19, 2009
4) Michelle Tan, 2 million troops have deployed since 9/11
December 18, 2009
5) Stars And Stripes, December 16, 2009
6) Reuters, December 16, 2009
7) ABC News, December 18, 2009
8) Defense Professionals, December 14, 2009
9) Russian Information Agency Novosti, December 14, 2009
10) Agence France-Presse, December 19, 2009
Afghanistan: World’s Lengthiest War Has Just Begun
Stop NATO
December 18, 2009
Afghanistan: World’s Lengthiest War Has Just Begun
Rick Rozoff
———-
The higher number of Defense Department contractors, 160,000, added to over 100,000 troops – with the likely prospect of both numbers climbing yet more – will result in over a quarter of a million U.S. personnel serving under the Pentagon and NATO. The latter has 42,000 non-U.S. troops fighting under its command currently and pledges of 8,000 more to date, with thousands in addition to be conscripted after the London conference on Afghanistan next month. Approximately 35,000 U.S. soldiers are also assigned to NATO’s ISAF and if the 33,000 new American troops are similarly deployed the North Atlantic bloc will have over 120,000 forces fighting a land war in Asia. Along with a Pakistani army of 700,000 active duty troops fighting on the other side of the border and an Afghan army of 100,000 soldiers, there will soon be well over a million military personnel engaged in a war with a few hundred al-Qaeda and a few thousand Taliban forces.
———-
Despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s pledge in his December 1 address at the West Point Military Academy that deploying 30,000 more of his nation’s troops to Afghanistan would be coupled with “a goal of starting to withdraw forces from the country in July 2011,” everything else he has said and all the facts on the ground suggest that the war will continue into the indefinite future.
At a press conference a week before the West Point troop surge announcement he said “it is my intention to finish the job,” and in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10 he affirmed: “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.”
History establishes that it is easier to deploy to than to withdraw from an active war zone.
The White House has already increased U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan from 32,000 at the beginning of the year to over twice that amount – 68,000 – currently, with the first contingent of even more reinforcements arriving this week. The 30,000 additional troops headed to the war front and the 3,000 more support forces pledged by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will push American military personnel in Afghanistan to over 100,000.
That number, likely to be increased yet further and accompanied by a veritable invasion of private military contractors and State Department operatives, will be augmented by over 10,000 more non-U.S. troops serving under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), bringing combined American and NATO regular military forces to well over 150,000 and total Western personnel to over 300,000 with an estimated surge of as many as 56,000 new U.S. contractors. With the addition of assorted security, intelligence, private contracting and other military camp followers from NATO nations, the figure could top a third of a million.
An occupation and warfighting force of those dimensions is not designed for a limited mission or a short stay.
In fact on December 6 U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones (former top NATO military commander in Europe) gave the lie to the 2011 withdrawal anodyne in an interview with CNN when he brashly asserted “We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times. We’re going to be in the region for a long time.”
Jones also emphasized the extension of the war in space as well as time by stating American reinforcements and redeployments would concentrate on eastern and southern Afghanistan to “eliminate the safe havens” inside Pakistan, a nation with a population of 175 million and nuclear weapons.
His claims, more authoritative than those of the president he serves, were echoed by Pentagon chief Robert Gates. Earlier this week it was reported that “In a visit to the war zone last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Afghanistan’s senior military officials that while the U.S. looks forward to the day when the Afghans can take control of their country, the United States would have a large number of forces in Afghanistan for some time beyond July 2011.”
Gates in his own words: “This is a relationship forged in blood. We will see it [through] to the end.” [1]
To demonstrate the scale of the U.S. and NATO intensification of the war in Afghanistan – so urgent, evidently, that it is being qualitatively escalated during the Christmas season – in addition to Gates’s visit to the Afghan war front, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, new German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor Zu Guttenberg and other top Western military and political leaders have recently traveled to Afghanistan to inspect their respective nations’ military forces stationed there.
On December 16 the first of the latest 30,000 U.S. troops committed to the war and the 16,000 that have received deployment orders since Obama’s December 1 speech, 1,500 Marines, arrived in the nation, prompting Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell to crow “The surge has begun in earnest.” [2]
The Washington Post ran a feature on December 16 based on a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) – “which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis” – in which the CRS stated “it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.”
In addition, that already astronomical figure “could increase further if the new [administration] strategy includes a more robust construction and nation building effort.” The report also remarked that as of a year ago contractors accounted for 69 percent of Defense Department personnel in Afghanistan and as such “represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States.” [3]
The higher number of Defense Department contractors, 160,000, added to over 100,000 troops – with the likely prospect of both numbers climbing yet more – will result in over a quarter of a million U.S. personnel serving under the Pentagon and NATO. The latter has 42,000 non-U.S. troops fighting under its command currently and pledges of 8,000 more to date, with thousands in addition to be conscripted after the London conference on Afghanistan next month. Approximately 35,000 U.S. soldiers are also assigned to NATO’s ISAF and if the 33,000 new American troops are similarly deployed the North Atlantic bloc will have over 120,000 forces fighting a land war in Asia. Along with a Pakistani army of 700,000 active duty troops fighting on the other side of the border and an Afghan army of 100,000 soldiers, there will soon be well over a million military personnel engaged in a war with a few hundred al-Qaeda and a few thousand Taliban forces.
Washington’s Afghan surge is not limited to uniformed personnel. The Wall Street Journal reported that “The White House hopes to have 1,000 State Department, Treasury and Department of Agriculture personnel in Afghanistan by next month, up from 300 a year ago.”
The newspaper revealed that a former psychiatric hospital in the state of Indiana is currently “the staging ground for one of the biggest deployments of U.S. civilians since the Vietnam War.” Non-Pentagon government officials en route to Afghanistan “are often paired with members of the Indiana National Guard, who are preparing for their own deployment in Afghanistan.
“Trainees spend a week on a make-believe forward operating base in the forest, where they go through military operations with the National Guard as if they were already deployed in Afghanistan. The civilian recruits learn to perform their own security functions.” [4]
The dramatic escalation of the war is also not limited to increases in personnel. The U.S. Defense Department recently announced that it was expanding the deployment of Stealth warplanes and high-altitude, long-endurance Reaper “hunter-killer” drones which are equipped with fifteen times more deadly missiles than its Predator predecessor. “[T]he Air Force is looking toward developing unmanned, long-range surveillance aircraft that also can carry warheads so they can be used during combat.” [5]
The U.S. Air Force’s latest stealth reconnaissance drone, dubbed “the Beast of Kandahar,” resembles “the much larger, swept-wing B-2 Stealth bomber, and officials confirmed this month that the military has begun using the classified, unarmed drone in Afghanistan.” [6]
The skies over Afghanistan are crisscrossed by U.S. and NATO surveillance aircraft, bombers and helicopter gunships to such a degree that for Afghans to even leave their homes means to risk their lives. Three Afghans were killed and one wounded on December 17 in Kandahar province when NATO attack helicopters obliterated their minibus.
Matters are no less deadly on the Pakistani side of the border. The day before the Afghan attack, the U.S. launched ten missiles from five drones in the second of two assaults, “an unusually intense bombardment,” [7] into North Waziristan, killing at least twenty people, identified as always as Taliban and al-Qaeda targets.
A Los Angeles Times feature on December 13 revealed that “Senior US officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond Pakistan’s tribal region.
“After confirmation that the CIA has been operating drone strikes in Pakistani territory, a new report says the US is seeking to expand the attacks into the country’s cities.”
The report added that “CIA spokesman George Little quoted spy agency Director Leon Panetta as saying that US has been launching the attacks from secret airfields in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” [8]
The U.S. is not alone in ratcheting up the longest and largest war in the world.
On December 13 U.S. Central Command chief General David Petraeus said “The number of European NATO troops in Afghanistan should swell beyond the 8,000 troops already promised….” [9]
The Pentagon is dispatching 4,000 101st Airborne paratroopers to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan in addition to a parachute battalion from the 82nd Airborne to join an American Stryker brigade and NATO ally Canada’s forces there. The deployments are part of a plan to “flood areas close to Afghanistan’s second largest city with Canadian and U.S. troops” and to “assist Canadian Forces to create a security noose around Kandahar City.” [10]
Reuters recently reported that “Germany plans to send up to 2,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan in response to requests from the United States and other NATO partners,” citing the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung which wrote “the United States and NATO members had already received signals to this effect.” [11] Germany currently has 4,500 troops stationed in Afghanistan, the third largest contingent after the U.S. and Britain. The 4,500 figure is the maximum number permitted by the nation’s parliament, but will soon be exceeded in another reversal of the nation’s post-World War II limits on waging wars abroad.
Agence France-Presse reported that “NATO hopes to send two tactical groups, up to 3,000 troops, to north Afghanistan under German command,” according to German General Karl-Heinz Lather, the chief of staff of NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, who said “From a military point of view, the allied headquarters in Europe thinks it necessary to send two tactical groups into this zone.” [12]
Herve Morin, the defense minister of France, which has 3,300 troops under NATO command in Afghanistan, announced that he may deploy “medium-sized supplementary troops” after the January 28 conference on Afghanistan in London. [13] 800 French Legionnaires are at the moment engaged in a fierce combat operation along with American counterparts east of the Afghan capital.
The top NATO military commander in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, was in Poland earlier this week to “discuss the Alliance’s ISAF mission in Afghanistan” [14] and to recruit more Polish troops for the war. Warsaw has already pledged to raise its force level to nearly 3,000 troops as it recently signed a status of forces agreement to base U.S. missiles and troops, the first foreign soldiers on its soil since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact eighteen years ago.
The Czech Republic “is for the first time in history sending its own helicopter unit to Afghanistan.”
“Czech soldiers and three upgraded Mi-171S transport helicopters will be…sent to the Sarana base in the southeast of the country to serve the needs of the NATO forces in the ISAF mission….The unit underwent comprehensive training for one and half a years, for instance in the Alps mountains and in desert areas in Israel and Texas….Czech soldiers will be first trained by their U.S. colleagues.” [15]
Spain has announced its will send more than 500 additional soldiers to Afghanistan, joining NATO and NATO partner states like Italy (1,000), Georgia (1,000), Britain, Hungary, Slovakia, Colombia, South Korea, Mongolia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Armenia in committing new forces. Troops from five continents with Australia included.
Not only full NATO member states but Partnership for Peace nations are being strong-armed to provide more troops. Finland and Sweden, both of which have increased their troop strength in northern Afghanistan in recent months, have been involved in their first combat operations since World War II in the first case and in almost 200 years in the second. Troops from both nations were engaged in the latest of a series of firefights on December 13.
The Bundeswehr will soon train the first contingent of troops from former Soviet republic and current Collective Security Treaty Organization member Armenia in Germany for action in Afghanistan.
The defense minister of nominally neutral Austria, Norbert Darabos, said that the U.S. and Britain were bullying his nation to send more troops to Afghanistan, bemoaning the fact that “America’s pressure on Austria is relatively intense, sometimes it is a little bit improper” and asserting that “Austria is a sovereign country [which] will not give in to the pressure.” [16]
What Darabos may be concerned about in part is the rising rate of NATO casualties in Afghanistan. During the past few days two Dutch troops were injured, one critically, in a roadside bomb attack in Uruzgan province.
An Estonian soldier was killed in a similar incident in Helmand province, bringing the country’s casualties to four killed and 23 wounded this year.
Two more British soldiers were killed this week, raising United Kingdom deaths to 239, 102 this year.
Nearly 500 Western soldiers have been killed so far this year, 305 of them American, compared to 155 U.S. military personnel lost during all of last year.
Undaunted, on December 16 the U.S. House of Representatives – by a vote of 395 to 34 – “passed a massive military spending bill to defray annual expenses, fund operations in Afghanistan, and pay for the troop withdrawal from Iraq.”
The $636.3 billion package, “which does not include monies for President Barack Obama’s recently announced decision to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan,” allots “80 million to acquire more unmanned Predator drones, a key tool in the US air war in Afghanistan and Pakistan….With little public debate in the United States, the pace of the drone bombing raids has steadily increased, starting last year during ex-president George W. Bush’s final months in office and now under Obama’s tenure.” [17]
In approving the Pentagon’s request, the American Congress endorsed “$130 billion to cover the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” excluding an “estimated $30 billion that will be needed to fund President Barack Obama’s recent decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.”
The bill also authorized the funding of “new Air Force global strike programs – including work on new manned and unmanned systems – Army brigade combat team modernization, a Navy attack submarine, and the Navy’s new Carrier Long-Range Strike system….Analysts called the decision a victory for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has lobbied the White House for more funding.
“The Obama administration will add $100 billion to the Pentagon’s 2011-15 base budget plan to cover the rising cost of personnel and pressing modernization needs….” [18]
Militarism is a psychopathology and war can be an addiction.
Analyst Andrei Grozin of the Central Asia Department of the Institute of the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] Countries in Russia averred an opinion of his own on why the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan and acquired military bases in Central Asia and why they will be loath to leave.
“[I]t’s important for Americans to coordinate the efforts of various structures, which are interested in, on the one hand, reducing traditional Russian influence on the authorities and society and preventing China from strengthening its influence, on the other hand….”
The same source’s comments were paraphrased: “One of the apparent geopolitical interests of the US in the region is to establish control over energy resources and pipelines that transport oil and gas to Central and Western Europe through Russia and also to China and Iran.” [19]
The prolongation and unprecedented expansion of the world’s lengthiest war, now in its ninth and on January 1 to enter its tenth calendar year, are by no means limited to alleged concerns over al-Qaeda, evil and opium poppies.
….
Previous articles on Afghanistan:
U.S., NATO War In Afghanistan: Antecedents And Precedents
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/u-s-nato-war-in-afghanistan-antecedents-and-precedents
Christmas 2009: U.S., NATO To Expand New Millennium’s Longest War
ABC Of West’s Global Military Network: Afghanistan, Baltics, Caucasus
Afghanistan: West’s 21st Century War Risks Regional Conflagration
U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History
Broader Strategy: West’s Afghan War Targets Russia, China, Iran
Following Afghan Election, NATO Intensifies Deployments, Carnage
U.S. Marines In The Caucasus As West Widens Afghan War
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/u-s-marines-in-the-caucasus-as-west-widens-afghan-war
Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army
Afghan War: NATO Trains Finland, Sweden For Conflict With Russia
West’s Afghan War And Drive Into Caspian Sea Basin
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/wests-afghan-war-and-drive-into-caspian-sea-basin
Afghanistan: U.S., NATO Wage World’s Largest, Longest War
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/afghanistan-u-s-nato-wage-worlds-largest-longest-war
Notes:
1) Associated Press, December 14, 2009
2) Associated Press, December 16, 2009
3) Washington Post, December 16, 2009
4) Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2009
5) Associated Press, December 16, 2009
6) Ibid
7) Trend News Agency, December 18, 2009
8) Press TV, December 14, 2009
9) Trend News Agency, December 13, 2009
10) Canwest News Service, December 17, 2009
11) Reuters, December 16, 2009
12) Agence France-Presse, December 15, 2009
13) Xinhua News Agency, December 17, 2009
14) Polish Radio, December 14, 2009
15) Czech News Agency, December 14, 2009
16) Trend News Agency, December 18, 2009
17) Agence France-Presse, December 17, 2009
18) Defense News, December 11, 2009
19) Voice of Russia, December 16, 2009
La guerra del Pentágono en la Península Arábiga
Stop NATO
December 18, 2009
La guerra del Pentágono en la Península Arábiga
Rick Rozoff
Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Germán Leyens
http://rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=97234
———-
Yemen se convertirá en el campo de batalla para una guerra por encargo entre EE.UU. y Arabia Saudí – cuyas relaciones de Estado a Estado son de las más fuertes y más durables de toda la era posterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial – por una parte e Irán por la otra.
Tal vez sea imposible determinar el momento exacto en el cual un sediciente guerrero santo apoyado por EE.UU. – entrenado para perpetrar actos de terrorismo urbano y derribar aviones comerciales – deja de ser un combatiente por la libertad y se convierte en terrorista. Pero una suposición segura es que eso ocurre cuando ya no es útil para Washington. Un terrorista que sirve los intereses de EE.UU. es un combatiente por la libertad; un combatiente por la libertad que no los sirve es un terrorista.
Los yemeníes son los últimos en aprender la ley de la selva del Pentágono y la Casa Blanca. Junto con Irán y Afganistán, que el especialista en contrainsurgencia Stanley McChrystal utilizó para perfeccionar sus técnicas, Yemen se une a las filas de otras naciones en las que el Pentágono está involucrado en ese tipo de guerra, llena de masacres de civiles y otras formas del llamado daño colateral: Colombia, Mali, Pakistán, Las Filipinas, Somalia y Uganda.
———-
BBC News informó el 14 de diciembre de que 70 civiles murieron cuando aviones bombardearon un mercado en la aldea Bani Maan en el norte de Yemen.
Las fuerzas armadas de la nación reivindicaron la responsabilidad del mortífero ataque, pero un sitio en Internet de los rebeldes huzíes contra quienes iba dirigido ostensiblemente el ataque declaró que “aviones saudíes cometieron una masacre contra los residentes inocentes de Bani Maan.” [1]
El régimen saudí entró al conflicto armado entre los (epónimos) huzíes y el gobierno yemení por cuenta de este último a finales de noviembre y desde entonces ha sido acusado de lanzar ataques dentro de Yemen con tanques y aviones. Incluso antes del último bombardeo numerosos yemeníes han muerto y miles han sido desplazados por los combates. Arabia Saudí también ha sido acusada de utilizar bombas de fósforo.
Además, el grupo rebelde conocido como Jóvenes Creyentes, basado en la comunidad musulmán chií de Yemen que representa un 30% de la población del país de 23 millones, afirmó el 14 de diciembre que “aviones caza jet de EE.UU. han atacado la provincia Sa’ada de Yemen” y que “aviones caza jet de EE.UU. han lanzado 28 ataques contra la provincia noroccidental de Sa’ada.” [2]
La edición del día anterior del Daily Telegraph informó sobre discusiones con funcionarios militares de EE.UU. que declararon que “por temor a que Yemen se esté convirtiendo en un Estado fallido, EE.UU. ha enviado ahora una pequeña cantidad de equipos de fuerzas especiales para mejorar el entrenamiento del ejército de Yemen como reacción ante la amenaza.”
Cita a un funcionario anónimo del Pentágono, diciendo: “Yemen se está convirtiendo en una base de reserva para las actividades de al-Qaeda en Pakistán y Afganistán.” [3]
La invocación del espectro de al Qaeda es, sin embargo, un señuelo. Los rebeldes en el norte de la nación son chiíes y no suníes, mucho menos todavía suníes wahabíes del tipo saudí, y como tales no están vinculados a ningún grupo o grupos que puedan clasificarse de al Qaeda, sino que es más probable que constituyan un objetivo de estos últimos.
Al servicio de los propósitos estadounidenses en la región, la prensa británica y estadounidense se ha estado refiriendo últimamente a Yemen como la “patria ancestral” de Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden procede de una destacada familia multimillonaria árabe saudí, pero como su padre nació en lo que es ahora la República de Yemen hace más de un siglo, los medios occidentales están explotando un insignificante accidente histórico para sugerir un papel activo de Osama bin Laden en esa nación y para establecer un tenue vínculo entre la guerra surasiática en Afganistán y Pakistán y la intervención armada saudí y estadounidense en un conflicto civil en Yemen.
En 2002, el Pentágono despachó unos 100 soldados, según algunas informaciones fuerzas especiales de Boinas Verdes, a Yemen para entrenar a los militares del país. En ese caso, por haber sucedido dos años después del atentado suicida contra el destructor de la Armada USS Cole en el puerto meridional yemení de Adén, atribuido a al Qaeda, y acompañado por ataques de drones contra sus dirigentes, Washington justificó sus acciones como represalias por ese incidente, así como por los ataques en la ciudad de Nueva York y en Washington, D.C. el año anterior.
El contexto actual es diferente y una guerra de contrainsurgencia respaldada por EE.UU. en Yemen no tendrá nada que ver con el combate contra supuestas amenazas de al Qaeda, sino formará de hecho parte integral de la estrategia de expandir la guerra afgana a círculos concéntricos cada vez más amplios incluyendo a Asia del Sur y Central, el Cáucaso y el Golfo Pérsico, el Sudeste Asiático y el Golfo de Adén, el Cuerno de África y Arabia. La ansiosamente esperada partida del presidente George W. Bush podrá haber llevado al fin de la guerra global oficial contra el terror, a la que se refieren ahora como operaciones de contingencias en ultramar, pero nada ha cambiado excepto el nombre.
El 13 de diciembre el máximo comandante del Comando Central del Pentágono a cargo de las guerras en Afganistán, Iraq y Pakistán, el general David Petraeus, dijo a la red de televisión Al Arabya que “EE.UU. apoya la seguridad de Yemen en el contexto de la cooperación militar suministrada por EE.UU. a sus aliados en la región” y “subrayó que barcos estadounidenses en las aguas territoriales de Yemen [están allí] no sólo para controlar sino para impedir las filtraciones de armas a los rebeldes houthi.” [4]
Habrá que recordarlo la próxima vez que se utilice el embuste al Qaeda/bin Laden para justificar la expansión de la participación militar de EE.UU. en Arabia.
El Yemen Post del 13 de diciembre escribió que la oficina houthi de medios “acusó a EE.UU. de participación en la guerra contra los huzíes” y publicó fotografías de lo que fue identificado como aviones estadounidenses “involucrados en operaciones de bombardeo en la provincia Sa’ada en el norte de Yemen.”
La fuente estimó que ha habido veinte bombardeos estadounidenses coordinados con vigilancia satelital. [5]
La prensa occidental nuevamente encabeza la vinculación de los huzíes, cuyos antecedentes religiosos de chiismo zaidí son bastante diferentes de la versión iraní, con siniestras maquinaciones imputadas a Teherán. Ni siquiera funcionarios del gobierno de EE.UU. han pretendido hasta hoy que haya evidencia de que Irán apoye, y muchos menos de que arme, a los rebeldes yemeníes. Eso cambiará si el guión se desarrolla según los precedentes, como lo indica el comentario de Petraeus antes mencionado, y Washington se hace eco de la afirmación del gobierno yemení de que Irán está armando a sus hermanos chiíes en Yemen, tal como lo acusan de hacerlo en el Líbano.
Yemen se convertirá en el campo de batalla para una guerra por encargo entre EE.UU. y Arabia Saudí – cuyas relaciones de Estado a Estado son de las más fuertes y más durables de toda la era posterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial – por una parte e Irán por la otra.
En un editorial de hace cinco días Tehran Times acusó de imprudencia a todas las partes en el conflicto yemení –el gobierno, los rebeldes y Arabia Saudí– y emitió una advertencia: “La historia proporciona un buen ejemplo. Arabia Saudí financió grupos extremistas en Afganistán y todavía, veinte años después de la retirada del ejército soviético del país, las llamas de la guerra en Afganistán están agobiando a los aliados de Arabia Saudí.”
“Y un escenario semejante está emergiendo en Yemen.” [6]
La comparación entre Yemen y Afganistán aludía en particular a Riad, en el segundo caso de trabajo en equipo con EE.UU., en la exportación de wahabismo basado en Arabia Saudí para expandir su influencia política.
Arabia Saudí intenta impulsar su propia versión de extremismo en Yemen como lo hizo anteriormente en Afganistán y Pakistán y lo hace actualmente en Iraq. Lejos de que EE.UU. y sus aliados occidentales expresen alguna objeción, los saudíes y las otras monarquías del Golfo Pérsico estarán a la vanguardia en lo que se calcula como compras de armas de Occidente por 100.000 millones de dólares durante los próximos cinco años. “El núcleo de esta orgía de compras de armas será indudablemente el paquete de sistemas de armas estadounidenses por 20.000 millones de dólares durante 10 años por los seis Estados del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo – Arabia Saudí, los E.A.U., Kuwait, Omán, Qatar y Bahrain.” [7] Arabia Saudí también está armada con aviones de guerra británicos y franceses de última tecnología así como con sistemas de defensa de misiles de EE.UU.
Lo que el comentario iraní arriba mencionado advirtió respecto a las “llamas de la guerra” en Afganistán es perfectamente confirmado por la Evaluación Inicial del Comandante del 30 de agosto de 2009 emitida por el máximo comandante militar estadounidense y de la OTAN en Afganistán, general Stanley McChrystal, y publicada con las modificaciones exigidas por el Pentágono en el Washington Post del 21 de septiembre. El documento de 66 páginas sirvió de base al anuncio del presidente Barack Obama del 1 de diciembre de que enviará 33.000 soldados estadounidenses más a Afganistán.
En su informe, McChrystal declaró: “Los principales grupos insurgentes en orden de su amenaza para la misión son: Quetta Shura Taliban (05T), la Red Haqqani (HQN), y Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG).”
Los dos últimos llevan el nombre de sus fundadores y actuales dirigentes, Jalaluddin Haqqanni y Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, los muyahidines preferidos de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia de EE.UU. en los años ochenta, cuando el director adjunto de la Agencia (de 1986 a 1989) era Robert Gates, actual secretario de defensa de EE.UU. a cargo de proseguir la guerra en Afganistán. Y en Yemen.
En su libro de 1996 From the Shadows, alardeó de que “la CIA tuvo importantes éxitos en la acción clandestina. Tal vez el más importante de todos fue Afganistán, donde la CIA, con su administración, canalizó miles de millones de dólares en suministros y armas a los muyahidines…” [8]
El New York Times divulgó en 2008 los siguientes detalles:
“En los años ochenta, Jalaluddin Haqqani fue desarrollado como un recurso ‘unilateral’ de la CIA y recibió decenas de miles de dólares en efectivo por su trabajo en la lucha contra el Ejército Soviético en Afganistán, según un informe en ‘The Bin Ladens,’ un libro reciente de Steve Coll. En esos días, Haqqani ayudó y protegió a Osama bin Laden, quien estaba formando su propia milicia para combatir a las fuerzas soviéticas, escribió Coll.” [9] Coll es también el autor del libro de 2001 Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.
El colega de Haqqani, Hekmatyar, “recibió millones de dólares de la CIA a través de la ISI (Inteligencia Inter-Servicios de Pakistán). Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin recibió parte del mayor apoyo de Pakistán y Arabia Saudí, y trabajó con miles de muyahidines extranjeros que fueron a Afganistán.” [10]
En mayo pasado el (en grado sumo) proestadounidense presidente de Pakistán, Asif Ali Zardari, dijo a la cadena estadounidense NBC news que los talibanes forman “parte de nuestro pasado y de vuestro pasado, y la ISI y la CIA los crearon juntas… (Los talibanes) son (un) monstruo creado por todos nosotros…” [11]
El 11 de septiembre de 2001 había sólo tres naciones en el mundo que reconocían el régimen talibán en Afganistán: Pakistán, Arabia Saudí y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos. El presidente de EE.UU., George W. Bush, inmediatamente individualizó para posibles represalias a siete Estados que supuestamente apoyaban el terrorismo: Cuba, Irán, Iraq, Libia, Corea del Norte, Sudán y Siria. Sólo Sudán, que expulsó a Osama bin Laden en 1996, tenía alguna conexión concebible con al Qaeda. De los diecinueve acusados del secuestro de los aviones del 11 de septiembre, quince procedían de Arabia Saudí, dos de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, uno de Egipto y uno de Líbano.
Pakistán y Arabia Saudí siguen siendo aliados políticos y militares altamente valorados de EE.UU. y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos tienen tropas sirviendo bajo comando de la OTAN en Afganistán.
Tal vez sea imposible determinar el momento exacto en el cual un sedicente guerrero santo apoyado por EE.UU. –entrenado para perpetrar actos de terrorismo urbano y derribar aviones comerciales– deja de ser un combatiente por la libertad y se convierte en terrorista. Pero una suposición segura es que ocurre cuando ya no es útil para Washington. Un terrorista que sirve los intereses de EE.UU. es un combatiente por la libertad; un combatiente por la libertad que no los sirve es un terrorista.
Durante decenios el Congreso Nacional Africano de Nelson Mandela y la Organización para la Liberación de Palestina estuvieron en cabeza de la lista de grupos terroristas del Departamento de Estado de EE.UU. Apenas terminó la Guerra Fría Mandela y Arafat (y Gerry Adams de Sinn Fein) fueron invitados a la Casa Blanca. El primero compartió el Premio Nobel de la Paz en 1993 y el segundo en 1994.
Si un hipotético sedicente yihadista partió de Arabia Saudí o Egipto en los años ochenta hacia Pakistán para luchar contra el gobierno afgano y su aliado soviético, era un combatiente por la libertad a los ojos de EE.UU. Si luego iba a Líbano era terrorista. A comienzos de los años noventa, si llegaba a Bosnia volvía a ser un combatiente por la libertad, pero si se presentaba en la Franja de Gaza o en Cisjordania era terrorista. En el Norte del Cáucaso ruso era un combatiente por la libertad vuelto a nacer, pero si volvió a Afganistán después de 2001 era terrorista.
Según cómo sopla el viento en Washington, un separatista baluchi armado en Pakistán o un cachemirí en India es un combatiente por la libertad o un terrorista.
Al contrario, en 1998 el enviado especial de EE.UU. a los Balcanes, Robert Gelbard, describió al Ejército por la Liberación de Kosovo (ELK) que luchaba contra el gobierno de Yugoslavia como organización terrorista: “Conozco a un terrorista cuando lo veo y estos hombres son terroristas.” [12]
En el siguiente mes de febrero la secretaria de Estado de EE.UU., Madeleine Albright, llevó a cinco miembros del ELK, incluido su jefe Hashim Thaci, a Rambouillet, Francia para presentar un ultimátum a Yugoslavia a sabiendas de que sería rechazado y llevaría a la guerra. Al año siguiente acompañó a Thaci a un tour personal del edificio de Naciones Unidas y al Departamento de Estado y lo invitó a la convención presidencial del Partido Demócrata en Los Ángeles.
Este 1 de noviembre, Thaci, ahora primer ministro de un pseudo-Estado reconocido por sólo 63 de las 192 naciones del mundo, recibió al ex presidente Bill Clinton de EE.UU. para la ceremonia inaugural de una estatua en honor de los crímenes de este último. Y de su vanidad.
Washington apoyó a separatistas armados en Eritrea desde mediados de los años setenta hasta 1991 en su guerra contra el gobierno etíope.
Actualmente EE.UU. arma a Somalia y Djibouti para la guerra contra Eritrea independiente. El Pentágono tiene su primera base militar permanente en África en Djibouti, donde estaciona a 2.000 soldados y desde donde realiza vigilancia con drones sobre Somalia. Y Yemen.
En palabras del personaje de Balzac, Vautrin: “«No hay principios, sólo hay eventos; no hay leyes, sólo circunstancias.»
Los yemeníes son los últimos en aprender la ley de la selva del Pentágono y la Casa Blanca. Junto con Irán y Afganistán, que el especialista en contrainsurgencia Stanley McChrystal utilizó para perfeccionar sus técnicas, Yemen se une a las filas de otras naciones en las que el Pentágono está involucrado en ese tipo de guerra, llena de masacres de civiles y otras formas del llamado daño colateral: Colombia, Mali, Pakistán, Las Filipinas, Somalia y Uganda.
Notas
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
Yémen: La guerre du Pentagone sur la péninsule arabique
Stop NATO
December 16, 2009
Yémen: La guerre du Pentagone sur la péninsule arabique (abrégée)
Rick Rozoff
Traduction par André Comte
———-
Le Yémen va devenir un champ de bataille pour une guerre par procuration entre les États-Unis et l’Arabie Saoudite – dont les relations d’état-à-état sont parmi les plus fortes et plus durables de toute la période d’après la 2ème Guerre Mondiale – d’une part et l’Iran d’autre part.
Il est peut-être impossible de déterminer le moment exact où un guerrier saint autoproclamé et soutenu par les U.S.A – entraîné à commettre des actes de terrorisme urbain et à abattre des avions de ligne civils – cesse d’être un freedom fighter, un combattant de la liberté et devient un terroriste. Mais c’est faire une hypothèse solide que de penser que cela se produit lorsqu’il n’est plus d’aucune utilité pour Washington. Un terroriste qui sert les intérêts américains est un combattant de la liberté; un combattant de la liberté qui ne les sert pas est un terroriste.
Les Yéménites sont les derniers à apprendre la loi de la jungle du Pentagone et la Maison-Blanche. Avec l’Irak et l’Afghanistan que le spécialiste de la contrinsurrection Stanley McChrystal a utilisé pour perfectionner ses techniques, le Yémen rejoint les rangs d’autres nations où le Pentagone est engagé dans cette variété de guerre, lourde de massacres de civils et d’autres formes de ce qu’on appelle des dommages collatéraux: la Colombie, le Mali, le Pakistan, les Philippines, la Somalie et l’Ouganda.
———-
BBC News a signalé le 14 décembre que 70 civils ont été tués quand un avion a bombardé un marché dans le village de Bani Maan au nord du Yémen.
Les forces armées de la nation ont affirmé la responsabilité de l’attaque mortelle, mais un site web des rebelles Houthi contre lesquels le bombardement était ostensiblement dirigé a déclaré “L’avion saoudien a commis un massacre contre les habitants innocents de Bani Maan.” [1]
Le régime saoudien est engagé dans le conflit armé entre les Houthis (éponyme) et le gouvernement yéménite au nom de ce dernier au début du mois de novembre et depuis a été accusé de lancer des attaques à l’intérieur du Yémen avec des tanks et des avions de guerre. Avant même les derniers bombardements un grand nombre de Yéménites ont été tués et des milliers déplacés par les combats. L’Arabie Saoudite a également été accusée d’utiliser des bombes au phosphore.
En outre, le groupe rebelle appelé Young Believers [Jeunes Croyants], basé dans la communauté des Musulmans Shiites du Yémen qui comprend 30% de la population du pays de 23 millions, a affirmé le 14 décembre que “Des avions de chasse US ont attaqué la province de Sa’ada du Yémen” et “Les jets US ont lancé 28 attaques sur la province du Nord-Ouest de Sa’ada.” [2]
L’édition du jour précédent du Daily Telegraph de Grande-Bretagne a donné des informations sur des discussions avec des officiers de l’armée des Etats-Unis, déclarant “Par peur que le Yémen ne soit en danger de devenir un état en échec, l’Amérique a envoyé maintenant un petit nombre d’équipes des forces spéciales pour améliorer l’entraînement de l’armée du Yémen en réaction à la menace.”
Un responsable non nommé du Pentagone a été cité disant “Le Yémen devient une base de réserve pour les activités d’al-Qaïda au Pakistan et en Afghanistan.” [3]
L’évocation de l’épouvantail al-Qaïda, cependant, est un leurre. Les rebelles du nord de la nation sont des Shi’ites et non des Sunnites, bien moins que des Sunnites Wahhabites de la variété saoudienne et en tant que tels non seulement ne sont liées à aucun groupe de groupes qui puisse être classé comme al-Qaïda, mais au contraire serait pour al-Qaïda une cible probable.
Au service des desseins américains dans la région, la presse britannique et américaine a fait référence au Yémen en tant que la “patrie ancestrale” de Oussama ben Laden. Ben Laden vient d’une éminente famille milliardaire d’Arabie Saoudite, bien entendu, mais comme son père était né dans ce qui est maintenant la République du Yémen il y a plus d’un siècle les médias occidentaux exploitent un accident historique insignifiant pour suggérer un rôle actif d’Oussama ben Laden dans la nation et pour établir un lien ténu entre la guerre sud-asiatique d’Afghanistan et du Pakistan et les interventions armées saoudienne et américaine dans un conflit civil au Yémen.
En 2002 le Pentagone a dépêché un nombre estimé de 100 soldats, certains des forces spéciales des Green Beret [Bérets Verts] au Yémen pour entraîner l’armée du pays. Pour ce cas-là, survenu deux ans après l’attaque suicide par bombe contre le destroyer de la Navy USS Cole dans le port yéménite d’Aden, attribuée à et accompagnés par des attaques de missiles drones contre des dirigeants reconnus d’ al-Qaïda, Washington a justifié ses actions comme étant en représailles pour cet incident ainsi que les attentats de New York et Washington, D.C. de l’année précédente.
Le contexte actuel est différent et une guerre contre-insurrectionnelle soutenue par les USA au Yémen n’aura rien à voir avec la lutte contre de prétendues menaces d’al-Qaïda, mais sera être en fait partie intégrante de la stratégie pour développer la guerre afghane dans des cercles concentriques encore plus large englobant l’Asie du Sud et l’Asie centrale, le Caucase et le Golfe Persique, l’Asie du Sud-est et le Golfe d’Aden, la Corne de l’Afrique et la Péninsule arabique. Le départ attendu avec impatience du président George W. Bush peut avoir amené la fin de la guerre mondiale officielle contre le terrorisme, à laquelle on se réfère maintenant sous le nom d’opérations d’urgence outre-mer, mais rien n’a changé à part le nom.
Le 13 décembre le commandant en chef du Commandement Central du Pentagone chargé des guerres en Afghanistan, en Irak et au Pakistan, le général David Petraeus, a dit sur la chaîne de télévision Al Arabiya que “Les USA soutiennent la sécurité du Yémen dans le cadre de la coopération militaire fournie par l’Amérique à ses alliés dans la région” et “il a souligné que les navires U.S. dans les eaux territoriales de Yémen [sont là] non seulement pour contrôler mais pour faire obstacle aux infiltrations d’armes destinées aux rebelles Houthi.” [4]
Se rappeler la prochaine fois que le leurre al-Qaïda/bin Laden est utilisé pour justifier l’engagement en pleine expansion de l’armée U.S. sur la péninsule arabique.
Le Yemen Post du 13 décembre a écrit que le service de médias Houthi “a accusé les États-Unis de participer à la guerre contre les Houthis”et qu’il a publié des photographies de ce qui a été identifié comme des avions de guerre US “impliqués dans les opérations de bombardement dans la province de Sa’ada [dans le] Nord du Yémen.”
La source a estimé qu’il y a eu vingt raids de bombardement U.S. coordonnés avec la surveillance par satellite. [5]
La presse occidentale prend à nouveau la tête de l’accusation en reliant les Houthis, dont le contexte religieux du shi’isme de Zaydi est tout à fait distinct de la version iranienne, aux machinations sinistres imputées à Téhéran. Même les fonctionnaires du gouvernement américain n’ont à ce jour reconnu aucune preuve que l’Iran soutient beaucoup moins qu’il n’arme les rebelles yéménite. Cela va changer si le script marche selon ce qui précède tel qu’ indiqué par le commentaire ci-dessus de Petraeus, et Washington fera loyalement écho à l’affirmation du gouvernement yéménite que l’Iran est en train d’armer ses frères shiites du Yémen comme il est accusé de le faire au Liban.
Le Yémen deviendra un champ de bataille pour une guerre par procuration entre les États-Unis et l’Arabie Saoudite – dont les relations d’état-à-état sont parmi les plus fortes et les plus durables de toute la période d’après la 2ème Guerre Mondiale – d’une part et l’Iran d’autre part.
………………………………
1) BBC News, 14 décembre 2009
2) Press TV, 14 décembre 2009
3) Daily Telegraph, 13 décembre 2009
4) Yemen Post, 13 décembre 2009
5) Ibid
