Archive

Archive for December, 2009

2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World

December 31, 2009 1 comment

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/cold-war-origins-of-the-somalia-crisis-and-control-of-the-indian-ocean

4) Fox News, December 27, 2009
5) Fox News, December 29, 2009
6) Press TV, December 16, 2009
7) Press TV, December 27, 2009
8) Yemen: Pentagon’s War On The Arabian Peninsula
Stop NATO, December 15, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/yemen-pentagons-war-on-the-arabian-peninsula

9) Rumors Of Coups And War: U.S., NATO Target Latin America
Stop NATO, November 18, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/rumors-of-coups-and-war-u-s-nato-target-latin-america

10) BBC News, December 20, 2009
11) Radio Netherlands, December 22, 2009
12) Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East
Stop NATO, October 24, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/bulgaria-romania-u-s-nato-bases-for-war-in-the-east

13) Polish Radio, December 11, 2009
14) Hurriyet Daily News, December 30, 2009
15) Ibid
16) Black Sea, Caucasus: U.S. Moves Missile Shield South And East
Stop NATO, September 19, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/283

U.S. Expands Global Missile Shield Into Middle East, Balkans
Stop NATO, September 11, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/u-s-expands-global-missile-shield-into-middle-east-balkans

17) World’s Sole Military Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars
Stop NATO, December 21, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/worlds-sole-military-superpowers-2-million-troop-1-trillion-wa

Categories: Uncategorized

Yemen: La Guerra Del Pentagono Nella Penisola Araba

December 31, 2009 Leave a comment

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

Categories: Uncategorized

EE.UU. recluta en todo el mundo para la guerra afgana

December 28, 2009 Leave a comment

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/u-s-nato-poised-for-most-massive-war-in-afghanistans-history

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-trains-finland-sweden-for-conflict-with-russia

7) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of World’s Oceans, Prelude To War, Stop NATO, January 29, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/proliferation-security-initiative-and-us-1000-ship-navy-control-of-worlds-oceans-prelude-to-war

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

Categories: Uncategorized

End Of The Year: U.S. Recruits Worldwide For Afghan War

December 24, 2009 1 comment

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/u-s-nato-poised-for-most-massive-war-in-afghanistans-history

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-trains-finland-sweden-for-conflict-with-russia

7) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of
World’s Oceans, Prelude To War
Stop NATO, January 29, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/proliferation-security-initiative-and-us-1000-ship-navy-control-of-worlds-oceans-prelude-to-war

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

Categories: Uncategorized

Jemen: Das Pentagon führt auch auf der arabischen Halbinsel Krieg

December 23, 2009 Leave a comment

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&sectionid=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&sectionid=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

Categories: Uncategorized

Afghanistan: precedenti storici e antecedenti

December 21, 2009 Leave a comment

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/u-s-nato-poised-for-most-massive-war-in-afghanistans-history

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/mr-simmons-mission-nato-bases-from-balkans-to-chinese-border

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

Categories: Uncategorized

World’s Sole Military Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars

December 21, 2009 2 comments

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran

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

Categories: Uncategorized

Afghanistan: World’s Lengthiest War Has Just Begun

December 18, 2009 Leave a comment

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/christmas-2009-u-s-nato-to-expand-new-millenniums-longest-war

ABC Of West’s Global Military Network: Afghanistan, Baltics, Caucasus

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/abc-of-wests-global-military-network-afghanistan-baltics-caucasus

Afghanistan: West’s 21st Century War Risks Regional Conflagration

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/afghanistan-wests-21st-century-war-risks-regional-conflagration

U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/u-s-nato-poised-for-most-massive-war-in-afghanistans-history

Broader Strategy: West’s Afghan War Targets Russia, China, Iran

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/broader-strategy-wests-afghan-war-targets-russia-china-iran

Following Afghan Election, NATO Intensifies Deployments, Carnage

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/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

Categories: Uncategorized

La guerra del Pentágono en la Península Arábiga

December 18, 2009 Leave a comment

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

Categories: Uncategorized

Yémen: La guerre du Pentagone sur la péninsule arabique

December 17, 2009 Leave a comment

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

Categories: Uncategorized

Yemen: Pentagon’s War On The Arabian Peninsula

December 15, 2009 Leave a comment

Stop NATO
December 15, 2009

Yemen: Pentagon’s War On The Arabian Peninsula
Rick Rozoff

———-
Yemen will become a battleground for a proxy war between the United States and Saudi Arabia – whose state-to-state relations are among the strongest and most durable of the entire post-World War II era – on one hand and Iran on the other.

It is perhaps impossible to determine the exact moment at which a U.S.- supported self-professed holy warrior – trained to perpetrate acts of urban terrorism and to shoot down civilian airliners – ceases to be a freedom fighter and becomes a terrorist. But a safe assumption is that it occurs when he is no longer of use to Washington. A terrorist who serves American interests is a freedom fighter; a freedom fighter who doesn’t is a terrorist.

Yemenis are the latest to learn the Pentagon’s and the White House’s law of the jungle. Along with Iraq and Afghanistan which counterinsurgency specialist Stanley McChrystal used to perfect his techniques, Yemen is joining the ranks of other nations where the Pentagon is engaged in that variety of warfare, fraught with civilian massacres and other forms of so-called collateral damage: Colombia, Mali, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and Uganda.
———-

BBC News reported on December 14 that 70 civilians were killed when aircraft bombed a market in the village of Bani Maan in northern Yemen.

The nation’s armed forces claimed responsibility for the deadly attack, but a website of the Houthi rebels against whom the bombing was ostensibly directed stated “Saudi aircraft committed a massacre against the innocent residents of Bani Maan.” [1]

The Saudi regime entered the armed conflict between the (eponymous) Houthis and the Yemeni government on behalf of the latter in early November and since has been accused of launching attacks inside Yemen with tanks and warplanes. Even before the latest bombing scores of Yemenis have been killed and thousands displaced by the fighting. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of using phosphorous bombs.

Moreover, the rebel group known as Young Believers, based in the Shi’ite Muslim community of Yemen which comprises 30 percent of the country’s population of 23 million, claimed on December 14 that “US fighter jets have attacked Yemen’s Sa’ada Province” and “US fighter jets have launched 28 attacks on the northwestern province of Sa’ada.” [2]

The previous day’s edition of Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported on discussions with U.S. military officials, stating “Fearful that Yemen is in danger of becoming a failed state, America has now sent a small number of special forces teams to improve training of Yemen’s army in reaction to the threat.”

One unnamed Pentagon official was quoted as saying “Yemen is becoming a reserve base for al-Qaeda’s activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” [3]

The conjuring up of the al-Qaeda bogey, however, is a decoy. The rebels in the north of the nation are Shi’ites and not Sunnis, much less Wahhabi Sunnis of the Saudi variety, and as such are not only not linked with any group or groups that could be categorized as al-Qaeda, but instead would be a likely target thereof.

In service to American designs in the region, the British and American press lately has been referring to Yemen as the “ancestral homeland” of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden comes from a prominent billionaire Saudi Arabian family, of course, but as his father had been born in what is now the Republic of Yemen over a century ago the Western media are exploiting an insignificant historical accident to suggest Osama bin Laden’s active role in the nation and to establish a tenuous link between the South Asian war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi and American armed intervention in a civil conflict in Yemen.

In 2002 the Pentagon dispatched an estimated 100 soldiers, by some accounts Green Beret special forces, to Yemen to train the country’s military. In that instance, coming as it did two years after the suicide bombing attack against the Navy destroyer USS Cole in the southern Yemeni port of Aden, attributed to al-Qaeda, and accompanied by drone missile attacks against identified leaders of the same, Washington justified its actions as retaliation for that incident as well as the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. the year before.

The present context is different and a U.S.-backed counterinsurgency war in Yemen will have nothing to do with combating alleged al-Qaeda threats, but will in fact be an integral part of the strategy to expand the Afghan war into yet wider concentric circles taking in South and Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia and the Gulf of Aden, the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The eagerly awaited departure of President George W. Bush may have led to the end of the official global war on terror, now referred to as overseas contingencies operations, but nothing except the name has changed.

On December 13 the top commander of the Pentagon’s Central Command in charge of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, General David Petraeus, told the Al Arabiya television network that the “U.S supports Yemen’s security in the context of the military cooperation provided by America for its allies in the region” and “stressed that U.S. ships in the territorial waters of Yemen [are there] not only to control but to impede the infiltrations of weapons to Houthi rebels.” [4]

To be recalled the next time the al-Qaeda/bin Laden canard is used to justify expanding U.S. military involvement on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Yemen Post of December 13 wrote that the Houthi media office “accused the U.S. of participating in the war against Houthis” and released photographs of what were identified as U.S. warplanes “involved in bombing operations in Sa’ada province [in] Northern Yemen.”

The source estimated there have been twenty U.S. bombing raids coordinated with satellite surveillance. [5]

The Western press is again leading the charge in linking the Houthis, whose religious background of Zaydi Shi’ism is quite distinct from the Iranian version, to sinister machinations imputed to Tehran. Even U.S. government officials have to date acknowledged no evidence that Iran is supporting much less arming the Yemeni rebels. That will change if the script goes according to precedent as is indicated by Petraeus’s comment above, and Washington will dutifully echo the Yemeni government’s claim that Iran is arming its Shi’ia brethren in Yemen as it is accused of doing in Lebanon.

Yemen will become a battleground for a proxy war between the United States and Saudi Arabia – whose state-to-state relations are among the strongest and most durable of the entire post-World War II era – on one hand and Iran on the other.

In an editorial of five days ago the Tehran Times accused all parties to the Yemeni conflict – the government, the rebels and Saudi Arabia – of recklessness and issued a warning: “History provides a good example. Saudi Arabia funded extremist groups in Afghanistan and still, two decades since the withdrawal of the Soviet army from the country, the flames of war in Afghanistan are overwhelming the allies of Saudi Arabia.

“And a similar scenario is emerging in Yemen.” [6]

The comparison between Yemen and Afghanistan alluded in particular to Riyadh, in the second case hand-in-glove with the United States, exporting Saudi-based Wahhabism to expand its political influence.

Saudi Arabia is attempting to promote its own version of extremism in Yemen as it did earlier in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is currently doing in Iraq. Far from the U.S. and its Western allies expressing any objection, the Saudis and their fellow Persian Gulf monarchies will be in the forefront of what is estimated to be $100 billion worth of Middle East arms purchases from the West over the next five years. “The core of this arms-buying spree will undoubtedly be the $20 billion U.S. package of weapons systems over 10 years for the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.” [7] Saudi Arabia is also armed with state-of-the-art British and French warplanes as well as U.S. missile defense systems.

What the earlier cited Iranian commentary warned about regarding “the flames of war” in Afghanistan is perfectly confirmed by the Commander’s Initial Assessment of August 30, 2009 issued by top American and NATO military commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal and published by the Washington Post on September 21 with the redactions demanded by the Pentagon. The 66-page document served as the blueprint for President Barack Obama’s December 1 announcement that 33,000 more American troops are headed to Afghanistan.

In the report McChrystal stated, “The major insurgent groups in order of their threat to the mission are: the Quetta Shura Taliban (05T), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG).”

The last two are named after their founders and current leaders, Jalaluddin Haqqanni and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Mujahideen darlings of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980s when the Agency’s deputy director (from 1986-1989) was Robert Gates, now U.S. Secretary of Defense in charge of prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. And in Yemen.

In his 1996 book From the Shadows, Gates boasted that “CIA had important successes in covert action. Perhaps the most consequential of all was Afghanistan where CIA, with its management, funnelled billions of dollars in supplies and weapons to the mujahideen….” [8]

The New York Times in 2008 divulged these details:

“In the 1980s, Jalaluddin Haqqani was cultivated as a ‘unilateral’ asset of the CIA and received tens of thousands of dollars in cash for his work in fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, according to an account in ‘The Bin Ladens,’ a recent book by Steve Coll. At that time, Haqqani helped and protected Osama bin Laden, who was building his own militia to fight the Soviet forces, Coll wrote.” [9] Coll is also the author of the 2001 volume Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.

Haqqani’s colleague Hekmatyar “received millions of dollars from the CIA through the ISI [Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence]. Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin received some of the strongest support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and worked with thousands of foreign mujahideen who came to Afghanistan.” [10]

This past May the (superlatively) pro-American president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, told the American NBC news network that Taliban is “part of our past and your past, and the ISI and CIA created them together….It (the Taliban) was (a) monster created by all of us….” [11]

On September 11, 2001 there were only three nations in the world that recognized Taliban rule in Afghanistan: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. U.S. President George W. Bush immediately afterward singled out seven so-called states supporting terrorism for potential retaliation: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Only Sudan, which expelled Osama bin Laden in 1996, had any conceivable connections to al-Qaeda. Of the nineteen accused September 11 airline hijackers, fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia remain highly-valued American political and military allies and the United Arab Emirates has troops serving under NATO command in Afghanistan.

It is perhaps impossible to determine the exact moment at which a U.S.-supported self-professed holy warrior – trained to perpetrate acts of urban terrorism and to shoot down civilian airliners – ceases to be a freedom fighter and becomes a terrorist. But a safe assumption is that it occurs when he is no longer of use to Washington. A terrorist who serves American interests is a freedom fighter; a freedom fighter who doesn’t is a terrorist.

For decades the African National Congress of Nelson Mandela and the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat were at the top of the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist groups. No sooner had the Cold War ended than both Mandela and Arafat (and Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams) were invited to the White House. The first shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 and the second in 1994.

If a hypothetical self-styled jihadist left Saudi Arabia or Egypt in the 1980s for Pakistan to fight against the Afghan government and its Soviet ally, he was a freedom fighter in the U.S.’s eyes. If he then went to Lebanon he was a terrorist. In the early 1990s if he arrived in Bosnia he was a freedom fighter again, but if he showed up in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank a terrorist. In the Russian North Caucasus he was a reborn freedom fighter, but if he returned to Afghanistan after 2001 a terrorist.

Depending on how the wind is blowing from Foggy Bottom, an armed Baloch separatist in Pakistan or a Kashmiri one in India is either a freedom fighter or a terrorist.

Contrariwise, in 1998 U.S. special envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard described the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fighting the government of Yugoslavia as a terrorist organization: “I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists.” [12]

The following February U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright brought five members of the KLA, including its chief Hashim Thaci, to Rambouillet, France to offer an ultimatum to Yugoslavia that she knew would be rejected and lead to war. The next year she escorted Thaci on a personal tour of the United Nations Headquarters and the State Department and invited him as a guest to the Democratic Party presidential nominating convention in Los Angeles.

This November 1st Thaci, now prime minister of a pseudo-state only recognized by 63 of the world’s 192 nations, hosted former U.S. President Bill Clinton for the unveiling of a statue honoring the latter’s crimes. And vanity.

Washington supported armed separatists in Eritrea from the mid-1970s until 1991 in their war against the Ethiopian government.

Currently the U.S. is arming Somalia and Djibouti for war against independent Eritrea. The Pentagon has its first permanent military base in Africa in Djibouti, where it stations 2,000 troops and from where it conducts drone surveillance over Somalia. And Yemen.

In the words of Balzac’s character Vautrin, “There are no such things as principles, there are only events; there are no laws, there are only circumstances….”

Yemenis are the latest to learn the Pentagon’s and the White House’s law of the jungle. Along with Iraq and Afghanistan which counterinsurgency specialist Stanley McChrystal used to perfect his techniques, Yemen is joining the ranks of other nations where the U.S. military is engaged in that variety of warfare, fraught with civilian massacres and other forms of so-called collateral damage: Colombia, Mali, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and 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

Categories: Uncategorized

Il legame transatlantico segreto della NATO: Armi nucleari in Europa

December 12, 2009 Leave a comment

Stop NATO
December 12, 2009

ARMI NUCLEARI IN EUROPA
Il legame transatlantico segreto della NATO
di Rick Rozoff

Tradotto per Voci Dalla Strada da VANESA

http://www.vocidallastrada.com/2009/12/armi-nucleari-in-europa.html

———-
“Vent’anni dopo la caduta del Muro di Berlino, piloti olandese, belga, italiani e tedeschi continuano ad essere pronti per partecipare ad una guerra nucleare”

“Le forze nucleari con base in Europa e impegnate con la NATO forniscono un collegamento essenziale politico e militare tra i membri europei e americani dell’Alleanza. L’ Alleanza quindi manterrà forze nucleari adeguate in Europa”.

“Anche se tecnicamente sono proprietà degli USA, le bombe nucleari conservate nelle basi della NATO sono destinate ad essere lanciate da aerei del paese ospitante”.

“Il dipartimento della Difesa, in coordinazione con il Dipartimento di Stato, dovrebbe coinvolgere gli alleati della NATO nella rivalutazione e conferma del ruolo delle armi nucleari nella strategia politica dell’Alleanza per il futuro”.
———-

L’Italia è capace di lanciare un attacco termonucleare? Potrebbero i belga e olandesi lanciare bombe ad idrogeno su obiettivi nemici?….Non è possibile che la forza aerea tedesca si stia allenando per lanciare bombe 13 volte più potenti di quella che distrusse Hiroshima, o forse si?

Quanto detto precedentemente deriva dal paragrafo di apertura di un articolo apparso nell’edizione on-line del 2 dicembre del Time magazine online, intitolato “Cosa fare riguardo le bombe nucleari segrete in Europa”.

In risposta a queste domande retoriche assume un tono molto serio che corrisponde alla dichiarazione: “E’ lo sporco segreto dell’ Europa la lista dei paesi con capacità nucleare va oltre quelli che- Gran Bretagna e Francia- hanno costruito le proprie armi. Ci sono bombe nucleari nelle basi delle forze aeree italiane, belga, tedesche e olandesi- e ci sono aerei capaci di lanciarle”.

L’autore di questo articolo, Eben Harrell, che ha scritto un pezzo altrettanto rivelatore per lo stesso sito di notizie, nel giugno del 2008, cita la Federation of American Scientists affermando che vi sono circa 200 bombe termonucleari di gravità B61 statunitensi parcheggiate nei quattro Stati membri della NATO prima citati. Una quinta nazione della NATO, che alberga ordigni nucleari, la Turchia, non viene menzionata nell’articolo. Nella notizia precedente del Times, l’autore Harrell scrisse che “Gli Stati Uniti detengono circa 350 bombe termonucleari in sei paesi della NATO (1). Ci sono tre varianti della B61, “fino a 10 (o 13) volte più potenti della bomba lanciata su Hiroshima” (2)- B61-3s, B61-4s e B61-10s- che si trovano in otto basi degli Stati dell’ Alleanza.

L’autore ricordò ai lettori del giornale che “nell’ambito di un accordo della NATO durante la Guerra Fredda, le bombe, che sono teoricamente di proprietà degli USA, possono essere trasferite al controllo aereo militare della nazione ospitante in tempi di conflitto. Vent’anni dopo la caduta del muro, i piloti olandesi, belga, italiani e tedeschi continuano ad essere pronti per partecipare ad una guerra nucleare (3).

La B61 è la principale arma ad idrogeno del Pentagono, una “bomba di peso leggero (che può) essere lanciata da…Air Force, Navy e della NATO ad altitudini molto elevate e velocità superiori a Mach 2.”

“Si possono anche lanciare ad alte velocità, da altezze di soli 15 metri. Fino a 22 tipi di aerei diversi possono trasportare esternamente o internamente la B61. Quest’arma si può lanciare in caduta libera o ritardata dal paracadute; si può detonare esplosione in aria o in terra” (4).

Gli aerei capaci di trasportare e usare la bomba includono gli aerei stealth di nuova generazione come il bombardiere B-1 ed il F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter multirol), capace di penetrare le difese aeree e di lanciare sia carichi convenzionali che nucleari.

Il programma Prompt Global Strike del Pentagono che “potrebbe includere nuove generazioni di aerei e armamenti cinque volte più veloci di qualsiasi cosa che si trovi ora nell’arsenale statunitense”, incluso il “missile crociera ipersonico X-51, disegnato per giungere al Mach 5- circa 1.600 metri al secondo (5). Si potrebbe anche configurare per uso in Europa, dato che gli USA possiedono missili crociera con ordigni nucleari per il dispiegamento di aerei e navi. Ma gli aerei da guerra destinati a trasportare armi nucleari statunitensi in Europa sono quelli dei loro alleati della NATO, incluso i tornado tedeschi, varietà di quelli che si sono usati nella guerra aerea della NATO contro la Iugoslavia nel 1999 e che sono quelli che attualmente si usano in Afghanistan.

Si presume che ci siano 130 ordigni nucleari degli Stati Uniti, a Ramstein e 20 nella base aerea Buechel in Germania e 20 nella base aerea Kleine Brogle in Belgio. Inoltre, ci sono documenti su decine di altre in Italia (Aviano e Ghedi) e ancora di più, il maggior contingente di armi nucleari statunitensi fuori dagli USA, è in Turchia, nella base aerea Incirlik (6).

Gli ordigni nucleari non sono solo stazionati in nazioni della NATO ma lo fanno in modo esplicito nel quadro di una politica di sessant’anni dell’Alleanza, in realtà una pietra angolare importante della NATO. Un articolo di questa serie scritto prima del summit del sessantesimo anniversario del blocco in Francia e Germania lo scorso aprile, “NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat of Nuclear War in Europe”(7), ha esaminato l’inseparabile vincolo tra la fondazione della NATO nel 1949 e il dispiegamento di armi nucleari e dei sistemi di lanci degli USA in Europa. Uno degli obiettivi principali della fondazione dell’ Alleanza è stato precisamente che si permettesse la collocazione e l’uso di armi nucleari statunitensi nel continente.

Sette mesi dopo la creazione del blocco, la Dottrina Di Difesa della NATO del novembre 1949, specificò che si assicurasse “la capacità di effettuare bombardamenti strategici tra cui la pronta consegna della bomba atomica. Questo è in primo luogo una responsabilità americana assistita possibile da altre nazioni”(8).

L’attuale Manuale della NATO contiene una sezione intitolata Forze Nucleari della NATO nel Nuovo Contesto di Sicurezza che contiene il seguente passaggio:

“Durante la Guerra Fredda, le forze nucleari della NATO hanno avuto un ruolo centrale nella strategia di reazione flessibile dell’Alleanza….Le forze nucleari erano integrate nell’insieme della struttura delle forze della NATO e l’Alleanza manteneva una varietà di obiettivi, incluso quelli che si potevano realizzare a breve termine. Questo obiettivo richiedeva alti livelli di preparazione e di posizionamenti di allerta di rapida azione per ruoli importanti delle forze nucleari della NATO”(9).

In poco tempo il dispiegamento ed il preteso uso di armi nucleari degli USA formarono parte di una strategia di dissuasione militare. L’antica Unione Sovietica è stata ritratta come se avesse una superiorità in armi convenzionali in Europa e la dottrina degli USA e della NATO prevedeva l’uso di bombe nucleari. Queste si trovavano in vari Stati della NATO come parte di quello che si chiamò un accordo di “ripartizione nucleare” o di “ripartizione del carico nucleare”: Anche se le bombe presenti in Europa erano statunitensi ed erano lontane dal controllo del Pentagono, i piani di guerra prevedevano che si caricassero sui bombardieri delle altre nazioni della NATO per essere usate contro l’Unione Sovietica e i suoi alleati (non nucleari) europei orientali. La stessa URSS, a tal proposito, non provò con successo la sua prima bomba atomica fino a 4 mesi dopo la formazione della NATO.

Con la dissoluzione del Patto di Varsavia, formato 6 anni dopo la NATO e come reazione all’inclusione della Repubblica Federale tedesca nel blocco (e l’invio da parte degli Stati Uniti di armi nucleari a questa nazione), e della stessa Unione Sovietica nel 1991, il Pentagono ritirò la maggior parte dei 7000 ordigni nucleari che aveva in Europa ma continua a mantenere centinaia di bombe nucleari tattiche.

Nel summit del cinquantesimo anniversario della NATO nel 1999 a Washington D.C, mentre il blocco realizzava la sua prima guerra, la campagna di bombardamento di 78 giorni contro la Jugoslavia, si espandeva per incorporare tre vecchi membri del Patto di Varsavia (la Repubblica Ceca, Ungheria e Polonia), ha anche approvato il nuovo Concetto Strategico ancora operativo che in parte dichiara:

“La suprema garanzia della sicurezza degli Alleati è data dalle forze nucleari strategiche dell’ Alleanza, particolarmente quella degli Stati Uniti; le forze nucleari indipendenti del Regno Unito e della Francia, che hanno un ruolo deterrenteente proprio, contribuiscono alla dissuasione generale e alla sicurezza degli alleati”.

“Un atteggiamento nucleare verosimile dell’ Alleanza e la dimostrazione di solidarietà della Alleanza….continuano a richiedere un’ampia partecipazione degli Alleati Europei coinvolti nella pianificazione della difesa collettiva in ruoli nucleari, nell’installazione in tempi di pace di forze nucleari nei loro territori e nel fare accordi di comando, controllo e consultazione. Le forze nucleari con base in Europa e impegnate con la NATO forniscono un vincolo politico e militare essenziale tra i membri europei e nordamericani dell’Alleanza. Per questo l’Alleanza manterrà le forze nucleari adeguate in tutta Europa”(10).

Il rapporto del Times del 2008 dice che la politica attuale è la seguente:

“Un accordo di “ripartizione di cariche” che è stato parte del centro della politica militare della NATO fin dal suo inizio”.

“Anche se tecnicamente sono proprietà degli USA, le bombe nucleari conservate nelle basi della NATO sono destinate ad essere lanciate da aerei da parte del paese ospitante”(11).

Si è fatto riferito anche all’ Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures pubblicato a febbraio 2008 il quale “raccomanda che le risorse nucleari statunitensi in Europa si consolidino, che gli analisti interpretino come una raccomandazione spostare le bombe a basi NATO sotto “ali statunitensi”, volendo dire base degli USA in Europa”(12).

Tutti e due gli articoli di Eben Harrell, dell’anno scorso e di questo mese, sottolineano che la collocazione di testate nucleari nel territorio delle nazioni no nucleari- e il Belgio e la Germania, Italia, Olanda e Turcia sono nazioni non nucleari- costituisce una grande violazione del Trattato di Non Proliferazione Nucleare (TNP), i cui primi due articoli dichiarano, rispettivamente:

Ognuno degli Stati di armi nucleari Parte del Trattato, si prende la responsabilità di non trasferire a nessun paese le armi nucleari o altri strumenti esplosivi o controllare tali armi o esplosivi direttamente o indirettamente; e non aiutare in nessun modo, stimolare o indurre nessuno Stato non nucleare a costruire o acquistare armi nucleari o altri strumenti esplosivi o controllare tali armi o strumenti esplosivi.

Ogni Stato carente di armi nucleari, Parte del Trattato, si prende la responsabilità di non ricevere il trasferimento da nessun cedente delle armi nucleari o altri strumenti esplosivi o controllare tali armi o esplosivi in modo diretto o indiretto; di non produrre o acquistare armi nucleari o altri strumenti nucleari; e non cercare o ricevere nessuna assistenza nella costruzione di armi nucleari o altri strumenti nucleari esplosivi(13).

Dopo, l’articolo del Times del 2 dicembre, segnala la continua presenza di testate nucleari degli USA in Europa che “è più di un anacronismo o rarità storica. Esse (le armi) costituiscono una violazione dello spirito del Trattato di Non Proliferazione Nucleare”.

“Poiché ‘la ripartizione del carico nucleare’, come si chiama la dispersione di B61 in Europa si è stabilita prima che il TNP entrasse in vigore, è tecnicamente legale. Ma come firmatari del TNP i quattro paesi e gli USA si sono impegnati a “non ricevere trasferimento… di armi nucleari o controllare tali armi in modo diretto o indiretto”. Questo, certamente, è precisamente quello che rappresenta il vecchio accordo della NATO (14).

L’autore ha parlato anche della relazione del Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, presieduta dall’ex segretario della difesa USA, James Schlesinger, Fase I (15) pubblicata a settembre e la Fase II (16) a dicembre 2008. La seconda parte del dossier contiene una sezione chiamata: Dissuasione: il caso speciale della NATO, in cui si afferma:

“L’Organizzazione del Trattato Atlantico Del Nord (NATO) rappresenta un caso speciale di dissuasione, sia per la storia che per la presenza di armi nucleari….La presenza di armi nucleari degli USA continua ad essere un pilastro dell’unità della NATO. Il dispiegamento delle armi nucleari in Europa non è un argomento di Servizio o di comando regionale combattente- è un argomento dell’Alleanza. Mentre i membri della NATO si basano su armi nucleari degli USA per la dissuasione- e mentre mantengono i propri aerei di doppia capacità come parte di questa dissuasione- non si dovrà intraprendere nessuna azione per rimuoverli senza un accurato processo di consultazione e delibera.

“Il Dipartimento della Difesa, in coordinamento con il Dipartimento di Stato deve impegnarsi controparti adeguate tra gli alleati della NATO nella rivalutazione e la conferma del ruolo delle armi nucleari politica e la strategia per il futuro dell’Alleanza.

“Il Dipartimento di Difesa deve assicurare che l’ F-35 di doppia capacità rimane entro il termine stabilito”. Più ritardi potrebbero portare a crescenti livelli di rischio politico e strategico e alla riduzione delle opzioni strategiche degli USA e l’Alleanza.

L’ F-35 è il Joint Strike Fighter, aereo da combattimento multiruolo, del quale il suo costruttore Lobkheed Martin dice che “fornisce agli USA e ai governi alleati un aereo da combattimento abbordabile, furtivo, di 5° generazione per il XXI secolo”(17).

Lontano dalla Guerra Fredda ha messo in evidenza l’eliminazione di una catastrofe nucleare in Europa, sotto vari aspetti le cose sono adesso molto più precarie. L’espansione della NATO durante l’ultimo decennio la ha portato adesso alle frontiere russe. Cinque membri pieni (Estonia, Lettonia, Lituania, Norvegia e Polonia) e molti altri partner dell’Associazione per la Pace (Azerbaiyan, Finlandia, Georgia, Kazajstan e Ucraina) sono direttamente adiacente al territorio russo e per cinque anni aerei da combattimento della NATO hanno realizzato pattuglie aeree sulla regione del Mar Baltico, a tre minuti di volo da San Pietroburgo (18).

Se il lancio, oltre 10 anni fa del primo immotivato attacco armato contro una nazione europea dal tempo delle guerre di Hitler nel 1939-1941 e l’attuale guerra- la più lunga e su maggior scala nel Sud dell’Asia, non sono stati motivi sufficienti per esigere l’abolizione dell’unico blocco militare al mondo, la NATO globale, l’insistenza dell’Alleanza nel suo diritto di parcheggiare-e usare-armi nucleari in Europa è certamente motivo sufficiente per relegarla ai tenebrosi giorni della Guerra Fredda e all’oblio.

Note

1) Time,19 Giugno 2008
2) Ibid
3) Time, 2 Dicembre 2009 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
4) Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm
5) Popular Mechanics, January 2007
6) Turkish Daily News, June 30, 2008
7) NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe Stop NATO, March 31, 2009 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe
8) http://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf
9) http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0206.htm
10) NATO, 24 Aprile 1999 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm
11) Time, 19 Giugno 2008
12) Ibid
13) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
14) Time, 2 dicembre 2009
15) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf
16) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf
17) Lockheed Martin http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35
18) Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict Stop NATO, 27 Febbraio 2009 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/baltic-sea-flash-point-for-nato-russia-conflict Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO’s War Plans For The High North Stop NATO, 14 Giugno 2009 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/scandinavia-and-the-baltic-sea-natos-war-plans-for-the-high-north

Categories: Uncategorized

Velká hra: USA, NATO a válka v Afghánistánu

December 11, 2009 Leave a comment

Stop NATO
December 11, 2009

Velká hra: USA, NATO a válka v Afghánistánu
Padesát nebo více zemí na jediném bojišti
Rick Rozoff

Překlad z Zvědavec

http://zvedavec.org/komentare/2009/12/3425-velka-hra-usa-nato-a-valka-v-afghanistanu.htm

———-
USA (a Británie) začaly bombardovat afghánské hlavní město Kábul 7. října 2001, křižujícími raketami Tomahawk odpalovanými z válečných lodí a ponorek a bombami shazovanými z letadel, a krátce poté americké zvláštní jednotky začaly s pozemními operacemi, úkolem, který od té doby prováděly pravidelné armádní jednotky a jednotky námořní pěchoty. Bombardování a pozemní bojové operace pokračují i o více než osm let později, a obojí bude v brzké době zesíleno na rekordní úroveň.
———-

Smíšené síly USA a NATO budou představovat ohromný počet jednotek, více než 150,000 vojáků. Pro srovnání, v září tohoto roku bylo v Iráku přibližně 120,000 amerických vojáků a hrstka „personálu“ z jiných zemí, přiřazeného do výcvikové mise – Irák NATO,v rámci které tam jsou.

„Ministr Gates řekl jasně, že konflikty, ve kterých se nacházíme, by měly být v samém popředí naší agendy. Chce zajistit, že se nevzdáme našich současných možností, protože mohou být potřebné pro nějaké neznámé budoucí konflikty. Chce zajistit, že Pentagon bude skutečně na válečné stezce… Poprvé za desítky let se hvězdy ekonomiky a politiky sjednotily za základní renovací toho, jak bude Pentagon pracovat.“

Afghánistán: Historické precedenty a budoucí případy

Posledních deset let si občané Spojených států a dalších západních zemí, a bohužel většiny světa, přivykli, že se Washington a jeho vojenští spojenci v Evropě a ti, kteří jsou určeni jako ozbrojená vnější základna na periferii „euro-atlantického společenství“, zapojují do ozbrojených agresí na celém světě.

Války proti Jugoslávii, Afghánistánu a Iráku a vojenské operace o nízkém profilu a zástupné kampaně v tak různých zemích, jako Kolumbie, Jemen, Filipíny, Pobřeží slonoviny, Somálsku, Čadu, Středoafrické republice, Jižní Ossetii a kdekoliv jinde, se staly nezpochybnitelným výsadním právem USA a jejich partnerů z NATO. A to natolik, že mnozí zapomněli brát v úvahu, jak se pohlíží nebo může pohlížet na srovnatelné akce, pokud by se o ně pokusily nezápadní země.

Před třiceti lety, 24. Prosince, vstoupily do Afghánistánu první sovětské jednotky, aby pomohly vládě sousední země v boji proti ozbrojenému povstání se základnou v Pákistánu a tajně (později celkem otevřeně) podporovaného Spojenými státy.

S blížícím se koncem roku 1979 a později vzrostla síla sovětských jednotek asi na 50,000 vojáků.

Velká hra

V této souvislosti stojí za zmínku, že v r. 1839 provedla do Afghánistánu invazi Británie, s 21,000 vlastních vojáků a vojáků z indických koloniálních jednotek, a v r. 1878 tam měla dvojnásobný počet jednotek, aby čelily ruskému vlivu v zemi v rámci toho, co začalo být nazýváno Velká hra.

23. ledna 1980 americký prezident James Earl (Jimmy) Carter ve své zprávě o stavu Unie uvedl, že „dopady sovětské invaze do Afghánistánu by mohly představovat nejzávažnější hrozbu pro mír po druhé světové válce“.

Když Sovětský svaz začal ze země své jednotky stahovat – první polovinu od 15. května do 16. srpna 1988 a druhou od 15. listopadu 1988 do 15. února 1989 – činil jejich nejvyšší počet něco málo přes 100,000 mužů.

1. prosince 2009 americký prezident Barack Obama oznámil, že do Afghánistánu posílá dalších 30,000 vojáků, kteří se připojí k tam již přítomným 68,000, a o dva dny později „ministr obrany Robert Gates řekl kongresu… že počet dodatečných jednotek odcházejících do Afghánistánu vzroste z 30,000 nejméně na 33,000, když se do toho započítají i podpůrné jednotky“. (1)

To znamená více než 100,000 mužů. Spolu se soukromými a bezpečnostními kontraktory je tento počet ještě vyšší.

Sovětské jednotky byly v Afghánistánu něco málo přes devět let. Americké jednotky jsou nyní v této zemi zapojeny do deváté sezóny bojových operací, a za méně než čtyři týdny začnou svůj desátý kalendářní rok tamní války.

25. listopadu mluvčí Bílého domu Robert Gibbs ujistil občany této země, že „se v Afghánistánu nacházíme v devátém roce našeho úsilí. Nechystáme se tam být dalších osm nebo devět let.“ (2) Důsledkem je, že USA mohou vést v Afghánistánu válku, která by mohla trvat až do r. 2017. Šestnáct let.

Nejdelší válkou v americké historii před touto současnou byla válka ve Vietnamu. Američtí vojenští poradci byli v této zemi přítomni od konce 50. let a tajné operace byly prováděny od začátku 60. let, ale teprve rok po zinscenovaném incidentu v Tonkinském zálivu – v r. 1965 – začal Pentagon s velkými bojovými operacemi na jihu a s pravidelnými bombardovacími útoky na severu. Poslední americká bojová jednotka opustila Jižní Vietnam v r. 1972, o sedm let později.

USA (a Británie) začaly bombardovat afghánské hlavní město Kábul 7. října 2001, křižujícími raketami Tomahawk odpalovanými z válečných lodí a ponorek a bombami shazovanými z letadel, a krátce poté americké zvláštní jednotky začaly s pozemními operacemi, úkolem, který od té doby prováděly pravidelné armádní jednotky a jednotky námořní pěchoty. Bombardování a pozemní bojové operace pokračují i o více než osm let později, a obojí bude v brzké době zesíleno na rekordní úroveň.

Od konce tohoto léta USA a jejich spojenci z NATO začaly s pravidelnými útoky střelami z bezpilotních letounů a s útoky vrtulníky uvnitř Pákistánu. Pokud by se o něco takového pokusili před třiceti lety sověti – když byly ohroženy jejich vlastní hranice – reakce Washingtonu by možná spustila třetí světovou válku.

SSSR nenasadil v Afghánistánu v 80. letech jednotky z žádné ze svých členských zemí Varšavské smlouvy. Historickou ironií, která si žádá širšího komentáře, než se jí dostalo – žádného – je, že každá z těchto zemí má nyní jednotky sloužící pod NATO a zabíjející a umírající na afghánském bojišti: a to Bulharsko, Česká republika, Maďarsko, Polsko, Rumunsko, Slovensko a bývalá Německá demokratická republika (zahrnutá do sjednocené Spolkové republiky, která tam má téměř 4,500 vojáků).

Patří mezi jednotky z téměř 50 zemí, které slouží, nebo brzy sloužit budou, pod velením NATO na afghánsko-pákistánské válečné frontě, kam spadají následující země aliance a několik zemí z jejích partnerských programů:

Členové NATO:
Albánie
Belgie
Británie
Bulharsko
Kanada
Chorvatsko
Česká republika
Dánsko
Estonsko
Francie
Německo
Řecko
Maďarsko
Island
Itálie
Lotyšsko
Litva
Lucembursko
Holandsko
Norsko
Polsko
Portugalsko
Rumunsko
Slovensko
Slovinsko
Španělsko
Turecko
Spojené státy (35,000 mužů, a stejný počet je na cestě)

Partnerství za mír/Koncil euroatlantického partnerství (EAPC):
Arménie
Rakousko
Ázerbájdžán
Bosna
Finsko
Gruzie
Irsko
Makedonie
Černá Hora
Švédsko
Švýcarsko (vloni se stáhlo)
Ukrajina

Kontaktní země:
Austrálie
Japonsko (námořní síly)
Nový Zéland

Jižní Korea

Jadranská charta (překrývá se s Partnerstvím za mír):
Albánie
Bosna
Chorvatsko
Makedonie
Černá Hora

Istanbulská iniciativa spolupráce:
Spojené arabské emiráty
Trilaterální vojenská komise Afghánistán-Pákistán-NATO:
Afghánistán
Pákistán

Různé:
Kolumbie
Mongolsko
Singapur

Výše uvedený seznam obsahuje sedm z patnácti bývalých republik Sovětského svazu (další vývoj stojí za zamyšlení), a dále sem pak patří Moldávie po letošní „Twitterové revoluci“ a Kazachstán, kde v září americký velvyslanec tlačil vládu k poskytnutí jednotek, a kandidáti na poslání jednotek v rámci závazků plynoucích z Partnerství za mír. (Obě země již dříve poslaly jednotky do Iráku). Jejich účast by vedla k tomu, že by jednotky přináležející k NATO mělo v Afghánistánu 60% bývalých sovětských států. Přidáme-li Moldávii, budou mít všechny evropské země (vyjma mikrostátů jako Andorra, Lichtenštejnsko, Monako, San Marino a Vatikán), a s výjimkou Běloruska, Kypru, Malty, Ruska a Srbska, v Afghánistánu své jednotky sloužící pod NATO.

Nikdy v historii světového válčení se vojenské kontingenty neskládaly z tolika zemí – padesáti či více – které sloužily na jednom bojišti. V jediné zemi. Jednotky z pěti kontinentů, Oceánie a Středního východu. (3)

Dokonce i údajná koalice ochotných, slepená USA a Británií po invazi do Iráku v březnu 2003, až do doby, kdy byly jednotky přetáhnuty do Afghánistánu, se skládala pouze ze sil z třiceti jedna zemí: USA, Británie, Albánie, Arménie, Austrálie, Ázerbájdžánu, Bosny, Bulharska, Chorvatska, České republiky, Dánska, El Salvadoru, Estonska, Gruzie, Maďarska, Japonska, Itálie, Kazachstánu, Lotyšska, Litvy, Makedonie, Moldávie, Mongolska, Polska, Rumunska, Slovenska, Slovinska, Jižní Koreje, Španělska, Thajska a Ukrajiny. Dvacet dva z těchto třiceti jedna přispěvatelů jsou země bývalého sovětského bloku (Albánie vzdáleně) nebo republiky bývalé Jugoslávie, které se nedávno (1999) připojily k NATO nebo byly připravovány na integraci do tohoto bloku či začlenění jiným způsobem.

Poslední tři velké světové války – války v a proti Jugoslávii, Afghánistánu a Iráku – byly použity jako zkouška a cvičiště pro expanzi globálního NATO.

Konsolidace mezinárodních (úderných) sil rychlé reakce a fungování armády pod řízením NATO tento týden dále pokročila, zaprvé projevem Obamy o navýšení jednotek, a posléze úsilím ministryně zahraničí Hillary Clinton a generálního tajemníka NATO Anderse Fogh Rasmussena naverbovat více spojeneckých jednotek na nedávno zakončeném setkání ministrů zahraničí NATO (a spojenců).

4. prosince „vrcholový představitel NATO řekl, … že další jednotky o celkové síle 7,000 mužů pošle příští rok do Afghánistánu nejméně 25 zemí, „kdy další jednotky budou následovat“, jak se americká ministryně zahraničí Hillary Rodham Clinton snažila vzpružit odhodlání spojenců“. (4) Setkání NATO v Bruselu navštívil také neurčený počet ministrů zahraničí nečlenských zemí NATO, poskytujících jednotky pro afghánskou válku, vrchní velitel všech amerických jednotek a jednotek NATO generál Stanley McChrystal a afghánský ministr zahraničí Rangeen Dadfar Spanta.

7,000 dalších vojáků, kdy „přibudou další“, by představovalo další hlavy ke stávajícím zhruba 42,000 neamerickým vojáků, kteří v současné době slouží v rámci NATO a 35,000 americkým vojákům činícím totéž, což znamená nejméně 85,000 vojáků pod velením NATO, a to bez oněch 33,000 nových amerických vojáků, kteří do Afghánistánu směřují. Největším nasazením bloku v zahraničí předtím bylo Kosovo v r. 1999, kdy na svém vrcholu tvořily aliancí vedené kosovské síly 50,000 vojáků z 39 zemí. (5)

Společné americké síly a síly NATO budou představovat obrovské číslo, více než 150,000 vojáků. Pro srovnání, v září tohoto roku bylo v Iráku zhruba 120,000 amerických vojáků, a pouze malá hrstka personálu z jiných zemí, přiřazeného do výcvikové mise – Irák NATO, v rámci které tam jsou.

V rámci členských zemí NATO italský ministr obrany Ignazio La Russa nedávno oznámil navýšení jednotek o 1,000 mužů, což zvedlo celkový počet vojáků této země na téměř 4,500, o 50% více, než bylo předtím nasazeno v Iráku.

Polsko pošle dalších 600-700 vojáků, a přidáme-li je k těm v Afghánistánu, bude to představovat největší počet nasazených polských jednotek v zahraničí v poválečném období a největší počet jednotek, které kdy byly nasazeny v historii této země mimo Evropu.

Británie poskytne dalších 500 vojáků, kdy se tak celkový počet přiblíží 10,000.

Bulharský ministr obrany Nikolaj Mladenov minulý týden řekl, že „existuje silná možnost, že jeho země navýší svůj vojenský kontingent v Afghánistánu“. (6) Aby naznačil povahu závazků nových členských států NATO, které jsou naloženy na jejich bedra po připojení se k alianci, a to, co se pak stane jejich prioritou, o tři dny dříve Mladenov, mluvící o rozpočtových problémech v souvislosti s ozbrojenými silami v důsledku současné finanční krize, ujistil, že „můžeme seškrtat některé jiné položky armádního rozpočtu, ale pro mise v zahraničí bude vždy existovat dostatek peněz“. (7)

Washington také tlačil na Chorvatsko, které se stalo plnohodnotným členem bloku letos v dubnu, aby dodalo více jednotek, a premiérka Jadranka Kosor se urychleně zavázala, že „Chorvatsko, jako člen NATO, své závazky splní“. (8)

Ministr obrany České republiky Martin Barták, který promluvil po Obamově projevu o navýšení jednotek, na začátku týdne hrozil českému parlamentu a uvedl: „Bude se muset spojencům vysvětlit, proč se Česká republika nechce zúčastnit posílení, zatímco Slovensko a Británie, například, své kontingenty posílí…“ (9)

Slovensko oznámilo, že své síly v Afghánistánu více než zdvojnásobí.

Německý parlament nedávno o další rok prodloužil nasazení téměř 4,500 vojáků své země v Afghánistánu, tedy maximum, které je povoleno Bundestagem, ačkoliv se vede diskuse o zvýšení počtu na 7,000, po konferenci o Afghánistánu v Londýně 28. ledna. Německé ozbrojené síly v této zemi jsou zapojeny do prvních pozemních bojových operací Německa od konce druhé světové války.

Zpravodajství z 3. prosince uvedlo, že americký velvyslanec v Turecku James Jeffrey tlačil na Ankaru, aby poskytla „specifický počet“ jednotek a aby byla „pružnější“ (10) ohledně toho, jak budou nasazeny, což znamená, že Turecko musí zmírnit svůj tak zvaný odpor k boji a začít s aktivním bojováním spolu se svými spojenci z NATO.

Po setkání s americkým vice-prezidentem Josephem Bidenem 4. prosince maďarský premiér Gyorgy Gordon Bajnai přislíbil poslat do jihoasijské bojové zóny o 200 vojáků více, což je nárůst o 60%, protože Maďarsko tam má v současnosti 360 vojáků.

Co se týká partnerských států NATO, americký náměstek ministra obrany pro Rusko, Ukrajinu a Euroasii Celeste Wallander byl v Arménii, aby tam zajistil první vojenskou účast této země v Afghánistánu, a příručí prvního zvláštního představitele NATO pro Kavkaz a střední Asii Robert Simmons (11) také vyzískal zdvojnásobení počtu jednotek od sousedního Ázerbájdžánu, a závazek až 1,000 jednotek Gruzie na příští rok.

Během tiskové konference v sídle NATO první den nedávného koncilu aliance o afghánské válce, 3. prosince, vyjádřil šéf tohoto bloku Anders Fogh Rasmussen vděčnost Spojeným arabským emirátům za odeslání jednotek do Afghánistánu a „pořádání Mezinárodní konference o vztazích NATO- UAE a za vstřícný krok na Istanbulské iniciativě spolupráce v říjnu“. (12)

Istanbulská iniciativa spolupráce vznikla na summitu NATO v Turecku v r. 2004, aby se posílilo vojenské partnerství s členy Středozemního dialogu (Alžírsko, Egypt, Izrael, Jordánsko, Mauretánie, Maroko a Tunis) a s Radou spolupráce zemí Zálivu (Bahrajn, Kuvajt, Omán, Katar, Saudská Arábie a Spojené arabské emiráty). (13)

Americká vojenská zpravodajská agentura zveřejnila 3. prosince článek, který probíral čtvrtletní obranné hodnocení, které bylo nedávno probíráno v Pentagonu.

Náměstek ministra obrany William J. Lynn III, který předtím, než se tohoto postu ujal, byl vice-prezidentem Vládních operací a strategie firmy Raytheon, se údajně chvástal, že „čtvrtletní obranné hodnocení nebude jako ta předešlá: zaprvé bude taženo stávajícími válečnými požadavky, aby se vyrovnaly konvenční a nekonvenční kapacity, a bude také přijat „celovládní“ přístup k národní bezpečnosti… Jde o mezník QDR“.

Lynn také řekl, že „ministr Gates dal jasně najevo, že konflikty, ve kterých se nacházíme, by měly být v samém popředí naší agendy. Chce zajistit, že Pentagon bude skutečně na válečné stezce… Poprvé za desítky let se hvězdy ekonomiky a politiky sjednotily za základní renovací toho, jak bude Pentagon pracovat“. (14)

Více než osm let války v Afghánistánu v r. 2011 neskončí, i přes Obamovo ujišťování, ani nebude tato válka poslední tohoto druhu. Bude pokračovat a obsáhne sousední Pákistán, s hrozbou, že se tato válka přelije do střední Asie a Iránu.

Krize, které svět čelí, není jen válka v jižní Asii: je to válka samotná. A obzvláště bezohlednost a nezodpovědnost samozvané jediné velmoci a vojenského bloku, který vede a který si osobuje výhradní právo na ohrožování zemí na celém světě vojenskou agresí.

Pokud nebude této politice učiněna přítrž ze strany skutečného mezinárodního společenství – kdy se mimo větší auro-atlantický svět (jak se sám nazývá) nachází více než šest sedmin lidstva — Afghánistán nebude poslední válečnou frontou tohoto století, ale první a prototypovou. Předzvěstí mnohem horších věcí.

Poznámky
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
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
14) American Forces Press Service, December 3, 2009

Categories: Uncategorized

Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind

December 11, 2009 3 comments

Stop NATO
December 10, 2009

Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind
Rick Rozoff

President and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States Barack Obama delivered his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance address in Oslo on December 10, which has immediately led to media discussion of an Obama Doctrine.

With obligatory references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi (the second referred to only by his surname) but to no other American presidents than Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy and, cursorily, fellow Peace Prize recipient Woodrow Wilson – the two other recipients, Theodore Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter, weren’t mentioned – the U.S. head of state spoke with the self-assurance of the leader of the world’s first uncontested superpower and at times with the self-righteousness of a would-be prophet and clairvoyant. And, in the words of German philosopher Friedrich von Schlegel, a prophet looking backward.

Accompanied by visionary gaze and cadenced, oratorical solemnity, his comments included the assertion that “War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.” Unless this unsubstantiated claim was an allusion to the account in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible of Cain murdering his brother Abel, which would hardly constitute war in any intelligible meaning of the word (nor was Cain the first man according to that source), it is unclear where Obama acquired the conviction that war is coeval with and presumably an integral part of humanity.

Paleontologists generally trace the arrival of modern man, homo sapiens, back 200,000 years, yet the first authenticated written histories are barely 2,400 years old. How Obama and his speechwriters filled in the 197,600-year gap to prove that the practice of war is as old as mankind and implicitly inseparable from the human condition is a question an enterprising reporter might venture to ask at the next presidential press conference.

Perhaps delusions of omniscience is the answer. The Oslo speech is replete with references to and appropriations of the attributes of divinity. And to historical and anthropological fatalism; a deeply pessimistic concept of providence.

Obama affirmed that “no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint.” Then shortly afterward stated “Let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.” An adversary’s invocation of the divine is false, heretical, sacrilegious; Washington’s is true, unerring, sufficient to justify any action, however violent and deadly. As unadulterated an illustration of secular Manicheaism as can be found in the modern world.

Toward the beginning of his speech the first standing American president in ninety years to receive the Peace Prize acknowledged that “perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.”

Understandably he exerted no effort to justify one of the two wars in question, that in Iraq, but endorsed and pledged the continuation of the other, that in Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan – while elsewhere speaking disparagingly of the European Crusades of the later Middle Ages.

Neither the Nobel Committee nor its honoree seemed inordinately if at all concerned by the unprecedented awarding of the prestigious and generous ($1.4 million) Peace Prize to a commander-in-chief in charge of two simultaneous wars far from his nation’s shores and in countries whose governments and peoples never threatened it in any manner.

In language that never before was heard during a peace prize acceptance speech, Obama added “we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed.”

With not a scintilla of national self-awareness, balance or irony, he also derided the fact that “modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale,” as he orders unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) linked by space satellites to launch deadly missile attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The central themes of Obama’s speech are reiterations of standing U.S. policy going back over a decade with the waging of war against Yugoslavia in early 1999 without United Nations authorization or even a nominal attempt to obtain one; that the U.S. and its Western military allies can decide individually and collectively when, to what degree, where and for what purpose to use military force anywhere in the world. And the prerogative to employ military force outside national borders is reserved exclusively for the United States, its fellow NATO members and select military clients outside the Euro-Atlantic zone such as Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Israel and Saudi Arabia of late.

What is arguably unique in Obama’s address is the bluntness with which it reaffirmed this doctrine of international lawlessness. Excerpts along this line, shorn of ingenuous qualifications and decorative camouflage, include:

“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

He offered a summary of the just war argument that a White House researcher could have cribbed from Wikipedia.

“[A]s a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [Gandhi’s and King’s] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.”

“I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.”

Evil, as a noun rather than an adjective, is used twice in the speech, emblematic of a quasi-theological tone alternating with coldly and even callously pragmatic pronouncements.

Indicative of the second category are comments like these:

“[T]he instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

“A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism….

“I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.”

Comparing a small handful of al-Qaeda personnel to Hitler’s Wehrmacht is unconscionable. Whatever else the former are, they barely have arms to lay down. But Obama does, the world’s largest and most deadly conventional and nuclear arsenal.

His playing the trump card of Nazi Germany is not only an act of rhetorical recklessness, it is historically unjustified. There would have been no need to confront the Third Reich’s legions if timely diplomatic actions had been taken when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936; if Britain and France had not collaborated with Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy to enforce the naval blockade of Republican Spain while German aircraft devastated Guernica and other towns and German and Italian troops poured into the country by the tens of thousands in support of Generalissimo Franco’s uprising. If, finally, Britain, France, Germany and Italy had not met in Munich in 1938 to sacrifice Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Hitler to encourage his murderous drive to the east. The same four nations met 70 years later, last year, to reprise the Munich betrayal by engineering the secession of Kosovo from Serbia, to demonstrate how much had been learned in the interim.

As to the accusation that many nations bear an alleged “deep ambivalence about military action” and even more so “a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower,” it bespeaks alike arrogance, sanctimony, and an absolute imperviousness to the reality of American foreign policy now and in the recent and not so recent past. According to this imperial “sole military superpower” perspective, the White House and the Pentagon can never be wrong. Not even partially, unavoidably or unintentionally.

If others find fault with anything the world’s only military juggernaut does, it is a reflection of their own misguided pacifism and ingrained, pathological “anti-Americanism.” Perhaps this constitutes the aforementioned “threats to the American people,” as there aren’t any others in Afghanistan or in the world as a whole that were convincingly identified in the speech.

What may be the most noteworthy – and disturbing – line in the address is what Obama characterised as the “recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” Lest this observation be construed as an example of personal or national humility, other – grandiose Americocentric – comments surrounding it leave no doubt that the inadequacies in question are only applied to others.

One would search in vain for a comparable utterance by another American head of state. For a nation that prides itself on being the first one founded on the principles of the 18th century Enlightenment and the previous century’s Age of Reason, that its leader would lay stress on inherent and ineradicable human frailty and at least by implication on some truth that is apart from and superior to reason is nothing less than alarming. The door is left open to irrationalism and its correlates, that the ultimate right can be might and that there are national imperatives beyond good and evil.

And if people are by nature flawed and their reasoning correspondingly impaired, then for humanity, “Born but to die and reasoning but to err” (Alexander Pope), war may indeed be its birthright and violent conflicts will not be eradicated in its lifetime. War, which came into existence with mankind, will last as long as it does. They may both end, as Obama believes they originated, simultaneously.

How the leader of the West, both the nation and the individual, has arrived at this bleak and deterministic impasse was also mentioned in Obama’s speech in reference to pivotal post-Cold War events that have defined this new century.

It is only a single step from:

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”

To:

“The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable.”

In proclaiming these and similar sentiments, Obama made reference to his host country in alluding to the war in Afghanistan: “[W]e are joined by 42 other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.”

Again, threats are magnified to inflated and even universal dimensions. All nations on the planet are threatened and some of them – 43 NATO states and partners – are fending off the barbarians at the gates. It is difficult to distinguish the new Obama Doctrine from the preceding Blair and Bush ones except in regard to its intended scope.

It is a mission outside of time, space and constraints. “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms….America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia….And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

“The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan.”

The U.S. president adduced other nations – by name – that present threats to America and its values, its allies and the world as a whole in addition to Afghanistan and Somalia, which are Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. All five were either on George W. Bush’s post-September 11 list of state sponsors of terrorism or on Condoleezza Rice’s later roster of “outposts of tyranny” or both.

Hopes that the policies of Obama’s predecessor were somehow outside of the historical continuum, solely related to the aftermath of September 11, 2001, have been dashed. The rapidly escalating war in South Asia is proof enough of that lamentable fact. War is not a Biblical suspension of ethics but the foundation of national policy.

In his novel La Bête Humaine (The Human Beast) Emile Zola interwove images of a French crowd clamoring for a disastrous war with Prussia (“A Berlin!”) and a locomotive heading at full steam down the track without an engineer. Obama’s speech in Oslo indicates that America remains bent on rushing headlong to war even after a change of engineers. Veteran war hawks Robert Gates, James Jones, Richard Holbrooke, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal have stoked the furnace for a long run.

Categories: Uncategorized

El lazo transatlántico secreto de la OTAN: Armas nucleares en Europa

December 9, 2009 Leave a comment

Stop NATO
December 8, 2009

El lazo transatlántico secreto de la OTAN
Armas nucleares en Europa
Rick Rozoff

Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Germán Leyens

———-
“Veinte años después de la caída del Muro de Berlín, pilotos holandeses, belgas, italianos y alemanes siguen listos para participar en la guerra nuclear.”

“Fuerzas nucleares basadas en Europa y comprometidas con la OTAN proveen un vínculo político y militar esencial entre los miembros europeos y norteamericanos de la Alianza. La Alianza mantendrá por ello fuerzas nucleares adecuadas en Europa.”

“Aunque técnicamente son de propiedad de EE.UU., las bombas nucleares almacenadas en las bases de la OTAN están destinadas a ser lanzadas por aviones del país anfitrión.”

“El Departamento de Defensa, en coordinación con el Departamento de Estado, debería involucrar a sus contrapartes apropiadas entre los aliados de la OTAN en la reevaluación y confirmación del papel de las armas nucleares en la estrategia y política de la Alianza para el futuro.”
———-

¿Es Italia capaz de lanzar un ataque termonuclear? ¿Podrían belgas y holandeses lanzar bombas de hidrógeno sobre objetivos enemigos?… No es posible que la fuerza aérea alemana esté entrenando para lanzar bombas 13 veces más poderosas que la que destruyó Hiroshima, ¿O tal vez sí?

Lo anterior proviene del párrafo de apertura de un artículo en la edición en línea del 2 de diciembre de Time magazine online, titulado “Qué hacer respecto a las bombas nucleares secretas de Europa.”

En respuesta a las preguntas retóricas planteadas adopta el tono enormemente serio que corresponde al tema al declarar: “Es el secreto sucio de Europa que la lista de países con capacidad nuclear va más allá de los que –Gran Bretaña y Francia– han construido sus propias armas. Bombas nucleares se almacenan en bases de la fuerza aérea en Italia, Bélgica, Alemania y Holanda –y aviones de cada uno de esos países son capaces de lanzarlas.”

El autor del artículo, Eben Harrell, quien escribió un trabajo igualmente revelador para el mismo medio noticioso en junio de 2008, cita a la Federación de Científicos Estadounidenses que afirma que se estima que hay 200 bombas termonucleares de gravedad B61 estadounidenses estacionadas en los cuatro Estados miembro de la OTAN mencionados. Una quinta nación de la OTAN que alberga ojivas, Turquía, no se menciona en el artículo. En la noticia previa de Time aludida anteriormente, el autor Harrell escribió que “EE.UU. mantiene unas 350 bombas termonucleares en seis países de la OTAN.” [1] Hay tres variaciones de la B61, “hasta 10 [ó 13] veces más poderosas que la bomba de Hiroshima [2] – B61-3s, B61-4s y B61-10s – estacionadas en ocho bases en Estados de la Alianza.

El autor recordó a los lectores de la revista que “bajo un acuerdo de la OTAN hecho durante la Guerra Fría, las bombas, que son técnicamente de propiedad de EE.UU., pueden transferirse al control de la fuerza aérea de la nación anfitriona en tiempos de conflicto. Veinte años después de la caída del Muro de Berlín, los pilotos holandeses, belgas, italianos y alemanes siguen listos para participar en una guerra nuclear.” [3]

La B61 es la principal arma de hidrógeno del Pentágono, una “bomba de peso ligero [que puede ser lanzada por… aviones de la Fuerza Aérea, de la Armada y de la OTAN a altitudes muy elevadas y a velocidades sobre Mach 2.”

También, “se puede lanzar a altas velocidades desde altitudes de sólo 15 metros. Hasta 22 tipos diferentes de avión pueden transportar externa o internamente la B61. Esta arma se puede lanzar en caída libre o retardada por paracaídas; se puede detonar por explosión en el aire o en tierra.” [4]

Los aviones capaces de transportar y utilizar la bomba incluyen los aviones stealth de nueva generación como el bombardero B-1 y el F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter multirol), capaz de penetrar defensas aéreas y de lanzar cargas convencionales y nucleares.

El programa Prompt Global Strike del Pentágono que “podría incluir nuevas generaciones de aviones y armamentos cinco veces más rápidos que cualquier cosa en el actual arsenal estadounidense,” incluidos el “misil crucero hipersónico X-51, diseñado para llegar a Mach 5 –aproximadamente 1.600 metros por segundo.” [5] También se podría configurar para uso en Europa, ya que EE.UU. posee misiles crucero con ojivas nucleares para despliegue en aviones y barcos. Pero los aviones de guerra destinados a transportar armas nucleares estadounidenses en Europa son los de sus aliados de la OTAN, incluidos Tornados alemanes, variantes de los cuales se utilizaron en la guerra aérea de la OTAN en 1999 contra Yugoslavia, y que actualmente están desplegados en Afganistán.

Se supone que hay 130 ojivas nucleares de EE.UU. en Ramstein y 20 en la base aérea Buechel en Alemania y 20 en la Base Aérea Kleine Brogel en Bélgica. Además, hay informes sobre docenas más en Italia (en Aviano y Ghedi), e incluso más, el mayor contingente de armas nucleares estadounidenses fuera del propio EE.UU., en Turquía en la base aérea Incirlik. [6]

Las ojivas no sólo están estacionadas en naciones de la OTAN sino que lo hacen explícitamente como parte de una política de sesenta años de la Alianza, en realidad una piedra angular importante de la OTAN. Un artículo de esta serie escrito antes de la cumbre del sesenta aniversario del bloque en Francia y Alemania en abril pasado, “NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe [7], examinó el inextricable vínculo entre la fundación de la OTAN en 1949 y el despliegue de armas nucleares y sistemas de lanzamiento de EE.UU. en Europa. Uno de los propósitos principales de la fundación de la Alianza fue exactamente que permitiera la colocación y uso de armas nucleares estadounidenses en el continente.

Siete meses después de la creación del bloque, la Doctrina de Defensa de la OTAN de noviembre de 1949 especificó que se asegurara “la capacidad de realizar bombardeos estratégicos incluido el rápido transporte de la bomba atómica. Es primordialmente una responsabilidad de EE.UU. con la ayuda en la medida de lo posible de otras naciones.” [8]

El actual Manual de la OTAN contiene una sección titulada Fuerzas Nucleares de la OTAN en el Nuevo Entorno de Seguridad que contiene el pasaje siguiente:

“Durante la Guerra Fría, las fuerzas nucleares de la OTAN tuvieron un papel central en la estrategia de reacción flexible de la Alianza… Las fuerzas nucleares estaban integradas en el conjunto de la estructura de la fuerza de la OTAN, y la Alianza mantenía una variedad de planes, incluidos objetivos que se podía realizar a corto plazo. Este papel demandaba altos niveles de preparación y posturas de alerta de rápida reacción para partes importantes de las fuerzas nucleares de la OTAN.” [9]

En ningún momento el despliegue y el pretendido uso de armas nucleares de EE.UU. formaron parte de una estrategia de disuasión nuclear. La antigua Unión Soviética era mostrada como si tuviera una superioridad en armas convencionales en Europa y la doctrina de EE.UU. y de la OTAN preveía el primer uso de bombas nucleares. Éstas estaban basadas en varios Estados de la OTAN en el continente como parte de lo que se llamó un arreglo de “repartición nuclear” o de “repartición de la carga nuclear”: Aunque las bombas almacenadas en Europa eran estadounidenses y estaban bajo el control del Pentágono, los planes de guerra preveían que se cargasen en bombarderos de otras naciones de la OTAN para su uso contra la Unión Soviética y sus aliados (no-nucleares) europeos orientales. La propia URSS, a propósito, no ensayó con éxito su primera bomba atómica hasta cuatro meses después de la formación de la OTAN.

Con la disolución del Pacto de Varsovia, formado seis años después de la OTAN y como reacción a la inclusión de la República Federal de Alemania en el bloque (y el envío por EE.UU. de armas nucleares a esa nación), y de la propia Unión Soviética en 1991, el Pentágono retiró la mayor parte de las 7.000 ojivas que tuvo en Europa, pero sigue manteniendo cientos de bombas nucleares tácticas.

En la cumbre del cincuenta aniversario de la OTAN en 1999 en Washington, D.C., mientras el bloque realizaba su primera guerra, la campaña de bombardeo de 78 días contra Yugoslavia, y se expandía para incorporar a tres antiguos miembros del Pacto de Varsovia (la República Checa, Hungría y Polonia), también aprobó su nuevo y todavía operativo Concepto Estratégico que declara en parte:

“La suprema garantía de la seguridad de los Aliados es suministrada por las fuerzas nucleares estratégicas de la Alianza, particularmente las de EE.UU.; las fuerzas nucleares independientes del Reino Unido y Francia, que tienen un papel disuasivo propio, contribuyen a la disuasión general y a la seguridad de los Aliados.

“Una postura nuclear verosímil de la Alianza y la demostración de solidaridad de la Alianza… siguen requiriendo la amplia participación de Aliados Europeos involucrados en la planificación de la defensa colectiva en roles nucleares, en la instalación en tiempos de paz de fuerzas nucleares en su territorio y en acuerdos de comando, control y consulta. Las fuerzas nucleares basadas en Europa y comprometidas con la OTAN suministran un vínculo político y militar esencial entre los miembros europeos y norteamericanos de la Alianza. Por ello la Alianza mantendrá fuerzas nucleares adecuadas en Europa.” [10]

El informe de Time de 2008 dice que la política actual es:

“Un acuerdo de ‘repartición de cargas’ que ha sido parte del centro de la política militar de la OTAN desde su inicio.

“Aunque técnicamente son de propiedad de EE.UU., las bombas nucleares almacenadas en bases de la OTAN están destinadas a ser lanzadas por aviones del país anfitrión. [11]

También se refirió a la Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures publicada en febrero de 2008 que “recomendó que los recursos nucleares estadounidenses en Europa se consoliden, lo que los analistas interpretan como una recomendación de que se desplacen las bombas a bases de la OTAN bajo ‘alas estadounidenses’ queriendo decir bases de EE.UU. en Europa.” [12]

Ambos artículos en Time de Eben Harrell, el del año pasado y el de este mes, subrayan que la colocación de ojivas nucleares en el territorio de naciones no nucleares –y Bélgica, Alemania, Italia, Holanda y Turquía son naciones no nucleares– constituye una crasa violación del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP), cuyos primeros dos Artículos declaran, respectivamente:

Cada uno de los Estados de armas nucleares Parte del Tratado, asume no transferir a ningún país las armas nucleares u otros instrumentos explosivos o controlar tales armas o explosivos directa o indirectamente; y no ayudar de ninguna manera, animar o inducir a ningún Estado no nuclear a fabricar o adquirir armas nucleares u otros instrumentos explosivos o controlar sobre tales armas o instrumentos explosivos.

Cada Estado carente de arma nuclear, Parte del Tratado, asume no recibir la transferencia por ningún transferidor de las armas nucleares u otros instrumentos explosivos o controlar sobre tales armas o explosivos directa o indirectamente; no manufacturar o adquirir armas nucleares u otros instrumentos nucleares; y no buscar o recibir ninguna asistencia en la fabricación de las armas nucleares u otros instrumentos nucleares explosivos. [13]

Luego, el artículo de Time del 2 de diciembre, señala que la presencia continua de ojivas nucleares de EE.UU. en Europa es “más que un anacronismo o una rareza histórica. Éstas [las armas] constituyen una violación del espíritu del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP)…”

“Porque ‘la repartición de la carga nuclear,’ como se llama la dispersión de B61 en Europa, se estableció antes de que el TNP entrara en vigor, es técnicamente legal. Pero como firmantes del TNP, los cuatro países y EE.UU. se han comprometido a ‘no recibir la transferencia… de armas nucleares o controlar sobre tales armas directa, o indirectamente.’ Eso, por cierto, es precisamente lo que representa el antiguo arreglo de la OTAN.” [14]

El autor también mencionó el informe de la Fuerza de Tareas del Secretario de Defensa sobre Administración de Armas Nucleares, presidida por el ex secretario de defensa de EE.UU. James Schlesinger, Fase I [15] que se publicó en septiembre y la Fase II [16] en diciembre de 2008. La segunda parte del informe contiene una sección llamada: Disuasión: el caso especial de la OTAN, que declara:

“La Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN) representa un caso especial de disuasión, tanto por la historia como por la presencia de armas nucleares… La presencia de armas nucleares de EE.UU. sigue siendo un pilar de la unidad de la OTAN. El despliegue de armas nucleares en Europa no es un tema de Servicio o de comando combatiente regional – es un tema de la Alianza. Mientras los miembros de la OTAN se basen en armas nucleares de EE.UU. para la disuasión – y mientras mantengan sus propios aviones de doble capacidad como parte de esa disuasión – no se debéría emprender ninguna acción para removerlas sin un proceso exhaustivo y deliberado de consulta.

“El Departamento de Defensa, en coordinación con el Departamento de Estado debe involucrar a sus contrapartes apropiadas entre los aliados de la OTAN en la reevaluación y confirmación del papel de las armas nucleares en la estrategia y política para el futuro de la Alianza.

“El Departamento de Defensa debe asegurar que el F-35 de doble capacidad se mantenga dentro del plazo previsto. Más demoras podrían llevar a crecientes niveles de riesgo político y estratégico y a la reducción de las opciones estratégicas para EE.UU. y la Alianza.”

El F-35 es el Joint Strike Fighter, avión de combate de multirol, del que su fabricante Lockheed Martin alardea que “suministra a EE.UU. y gobiernos aliados un avión de combate abordable, furtivo, de 5ª generación para el Siglo XXI.” [17]

Lejos de que el fin de la Guerra Fría haya señalado la eliminación de una catástrofe nuclear en Europa, de muchas maneras las cosas son ahora aún más precarias. La expansión de la OTAN durante la última década la ha llevado ahora a las fronteras de Rusia. Cinco miembros plenos (Estonia, Letonia, Lituania, Noruega y Polonia) y otros tantos asociados de la Asociación para la Paz (Azerbaiyán, Finlandia, Georgia, Kazajstán y Ucrania) están directamente contiguos al territorio ruso y durante cinco años aviones de combate de la OTAN han realizado patrullas aéreas sobre la región del Mar Báltico, a tres minutos de vuelo de San Petersburgo. [18]

Si el lanzamiento hace diez años del primer ataque armado sin provocación previa contra una nación europea desde las guerras de Hitler de 1939-1941 y la actual guerra – la más larga y de mayor escala en el Sur de Asia – no fueran motivos suficientes para exigir la abolición del único bloque militar del mundo, la así llamada OTAN global, la insistencia de la Alianza en su derecho a estacionar – y emplear – armas nucleares en Europa es ciertamente motivo suficiente para relegarla a los tenebrosos días de la Guerra Fría y al olvido.

Notas

1) Time, June 19, 2008

2) Ibíd.

3) Time, December 2, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

4) Global Security

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm

5) Popular Mechanics, January 2007

6) Turkish Daily News, June 30, 2008

7) NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe
Stop NATO, March 31, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe

8) http://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf

9) http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0206.htm

10) NATO, April 24, 1999

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm

11) Time, June 19, 2008

12) Ibid

13) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

14) Time, December 2, 2009

15) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf

16) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf

17) Lockheed Martin

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35

18) Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict
Stop NATO, February 27, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/baltic-sea-flash-point-for-nato-russia-conflict

Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO’s War Plans For The High North
Stop NATO, June 14, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/scandinavia-and-the-baltic-sea-natos-war-plans-for-the-high-north

Categories: Uncategorized

Nobel Committee Celebrates War As Peace

December 8, 2009 1 comment

Stop NATO
December 8, 2009

Nobel Committee Celebrates War As Peace
Rick Rozoff

On Thursday December 10 U.S. President Barack Obama will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced its selection for the prize on October 9 of this year, less than nine months after Obama assumed the mantle of the American presidency and less than a month after that announced the doubling of his nation’s troops for the world’s longest-running war in Afghanistan. The first contingent of new forces, consisting of 1,500 Marines, is to arrive next week, right before Christmas.

Nine days before the bestowal of the Nobel Peace Prize, the American president delivered a speech at the West Point Military Academy in which he pledged an additional 30,000 troops for a war now in its ninth year. His (and his predecessor George W. Bush’s) Defense Secretary Robert Gates hastened to add that 3,000 more support troops would be deployed, bringing the total to over 100,000, only 20,000 short of American soldiers in Iraq, and with as many as 50,000 more non-U.S. forces serving under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. In his West Point address Obama reminded his listeners that “When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan….” He has ordered that number to be more than tripled.

A brief report on Obama’s peace prize appeared on the CBS News website on December 7 with the seemingly paradoxical title “A Peace Prize for a War President” by the news agency’s White House correspondent, Mark Knoller.

Neither the title nor the article it introduced was ironic. They reflected the straightforward truth.

The feature stated “There’ll be no effort by Barack Obama to disguise or obscure the fact that he’s a war president when he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Thursday.

“The ceremony takes place ten days after he announced plans to escalate the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan by deploying another 30,000 American troops there.”

The selection of Obama evoked a prompt and aptly indignant response from Michel Chossudovsky at the Centre for Research on Globalization, who on October 11 published a piece called “Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War Becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth” [1] which stated inter alia that “When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,” then “the Lie becomes the Truth.”

Although there are no firm, codified guidelines for nominating and agreeing upon a Peace Prize recipient, Alfred Nobel’s will states that it should be conferred upon a “person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Those criteria have arguably never been honored or strictly abided by since the annual prize was first awarded in 1901. Several winners have been cited for helping to end wars – often by simply prevailing in them. One of the two American presidents previously awarded the prize while in office, Woodrow Wilson, is such a one.

The other was Theodore Roosevelt, who as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897 said “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”

Both Roosevelt in 1906 and Wilson in 1919 were standing presidents when they received the prize. The first had fought in Cuba during the Spanish-American War (the war he demanded a year before it began) and Wilson brought the United States into the First World War.

The Spanish-American War inaugurated the expansion of the U.S. from a hemispheric to an Asia-Pacific power. And an empire. World War I placed the American army on the European continent for the first time and signaled its emergence as an international military power. Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901 when William McKinley, who launched the conflict with Spain and acquired Cuba, Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico as spoils of war, was assassinated; Wilson not only sent over one million soldiers to France but also deployed 13,000 troops to fight the new Russian government of Vladimir Lenin in 1918.

But neither Roosevelt nor Wilson were commanders-in-chief of a war when they were given the Nobel Prize. And they received it for, at least in theory, contributing to ending wars; the Russo-Japanese War and World War I, respectively. Granting the Nobel Peace Prize to a head of state escalating a war already in its ninth year half a world away from his own nation is a precedent that was reserved for this year.

Reuters quoted White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on December 7 stating “We’ll address directly the notion that many have wondered, which is the juxtaposition of the timing for the Nobel Peace Prize and – and his [Obama’s] commitment to add more troops around – into Afghanistan.”

Juxtaposition, paradox, irony, contradiction and so forth are terms too weak and inaccurate to describe the timing of the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient, coming as it did between two pledges of military reinforcements for the world’s largest-scale and longest-running war. Travesty is a better word.

Speculation was rife after October 9 regarding the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s rationale and motives for awarding Obama the prize, and press pundits were not amiss in offering explanations. But actions are more revealing than assumed or imaginary intentions and what the Nobel Committee has accomplished is to yet further tarnish its reputation and that of the prize it grants.

It is hard to think of any recipient, and surely any recent one, who personifies the qualities indicated by Alfred Nobel himself. Advocating and working for peace seem to have little if anything to do with being awarded the nominal Peace Prize. But twice in the last three years it has been conferred upon individuals far more deserving of indictment for violating the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, especially that section of Principle VI, Crimes against peace, which is defined as “Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.”

Two years ago the prize was shared by Al Gore, who as the vice president of the U.S.’s first post-Cold War administration helped preside over deadly street battles in Somalia and bombing – incessant bombing – attacks in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yugoslavia. And the launching of Plan Colombia in 1999, the latest fruit of which is the Pentagon’s acquisition of seven new military bases in the country and the resulting threat of armed conflict with its neighbors. Arranged by this year’s Peace Prize recipient. But, again, Gore received the prize years after leaving office and for work in an area unrelated to his former government posts.

Obama’s December 1 speech was larded with lines evocative of the worst rhetorical excesses of his predecessor combined with allusions to broadening the war reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s and Henry Kissinger’s expansion of what had previously been America’s longest war from Vietnam into Cambodia in 1970. “[S]hortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies….”

The current administration has, in addition to plans to boost combined U.S. and NATO (“our allies”) military forces to 150,000 in Afghanistan, dramatically escalated drone missile attacks inside neighboring Pakistan and, as the above quote demonstrates, declared western and southern Pakistan part of the expanding war theater.

The president mentioned or alluded to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization several times in his address, in one instance with a degree of hyperbole that is as frightening as it is extravagant. “For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

“We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.”

The entire world is threatened by a spreading cancer. This alarmist and crude phraseology was employed by a 21st century leader of the world’s superpower, a Harvard graduate, but could as well have been lifted from the lowest yellow journalism screed of the Cold War.

In attempting to deny the obvious – the inevitable – Obama continued by stating that “there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations….” Troops from America’s NATO and NATO partner vassals and tributaries in the war against barbarians – the terms are those of Zbigniew Brzezinski from his 1997 The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives – will not be limited to the war in Afghanistan, which in fact is a laboratory for a far broader global strategy, as “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan….Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.”

U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones said in October that “according to the maximum estimate, al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters operating in Afghanistan without any bases or ability to launch attacks on the West.” Government estimates for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are in the neighborhood of 20,000.

This is the global cancer that requires 150,000 U.S. and NATO troops and an Afghan army of a quarter million or more troops. And a war that will continue well beyond the 2011 deadline mentioned in the West Point speech and be fought with intensified vigor and as far from Afghanistan as the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the Southeast Asian archipelago.

With the deployment of “senior members of Mr. Obama’s war council,” as the New York Times characterized them, on the Sunday morning television news program circuit on December 7, the scope and the length of the already biggest and longest war in the world became undeniable.

The National Security Adviser, former Marine general and NATO top military commander James Jones, told CNN’s State of the Union: “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.”

He added that the influx of more American and NATO troops “will allow us to move our forces back towards the border regions, where really the most important struggle that we’re going to have is to make sure that on the Pakistani side of the border, that we eliminate the safe havens.”

Pentagon chief Robert Gates said on NBC’s Meet the Press that although there would still be over 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan in 2011, only “some handful, or some small number, or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time.”

The Pentagon’s Central Command chief, General David Petraeus, appeared on Fox News Sunday and acknowledged that there were no plans for a “rush to the exits” and that there “could be tens of thousands of American troops in Afghanistan for several years.” [2]

Little noted with the expansion of the war is that its range is widening as its intensity is deepening.

The top U.S. Air Force commander in Europe and Eurasia, General Roger A. Brady, was in Georgia on December 7 and in the neighboring South Caucasus nation of Azerbaijan on the 8th to discuss both nations’ increased troop deployments to Afghanistan and solidifying strategic military relations.

The president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has recently and once again threatened war against Nagorno Karabakh and by unavoidable implication Armenia, which is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization with Russia. The latter is obligated to provide Armenia military assistance under terms of the treaty in the event of it becoming the victim of aggression. With the American commander listening attentively, defense minister of Azerbaijan Colonel-General Safar Abiyev said that ongoing negotiations over Nagorno Karabakh “were not fruitful and such a situation forced Azerbaijan to use other ways to liberate its lands from the occupation.” [3]

On December 4 the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, who fought a five-day war with Russia in August of last year, spoke of his offering the U.S. and NATO 1,000 more troops for the Afghan war and ominously added: “This is a unique chance for our soldiers to receive a real combat baptism.

“We do not need the army only for showing it in military parades….While our allies – in this case the United States and Europe – are concentrating on other issues [Afghanistan and Iraq], our enemy is getting active. The sooner the Afghan situation is resolved and sooner the war is over in Iraq, [the sooner] Georgia will be more protected.” [4]

The enemy is Russia and the quid pro quo is U.S.-trained Georgian troops receiving a war zone “baptism” for a future conflict with their “numerous, dangerous and perfidious” adversary. The adjectives are also Saakashvili’s, as are these words: “We need an army that knows how to fight. And participation in the operation in Afghanistan is a unique chance to study this and receive experience….Our final aim is to free the occupied territories [Abkhazia and South Ossetia] and unite and integrate Georgia.” [5]

Other nations are obtaining combat experience in Afghanistan under NATO auspices for use in and on the borders of their homelands, including, like Azerbaijan and Georgia, nations bordering Russia – Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Norway, Poland and Ukraine – as well as future belligerents in conflicts elsewhere like Colombia, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates.

If the world’s sole superpower and its NATO entourage can employ the military necessity at will to advance their interests abroad, their “vassals” will be emboldened to do so nearer home and will receive the arms and training to execute their designs.

Far from promoting peace, even an enforced peace, a Pax Americana, the war in Afghanistan and U.S. foreign policy in general are igniting power kegs around the world.

If it can be argued that Obama inherited the war in South Asia from George W. Bush and is intent on “finishing the job,” his signing of the $106 billion Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations in July and the $680 billion 2010 National Defense Authorization Act in late October belies any claim of objection to the enhanced use of the military in general and war in particular.

Next year’s Pentagon budget is the largest, in both current and real U.S. dollars, since 1945, the last year of World War II. Although it contains $130 billion for the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq that previously would have been appropriated as separate supplemental funds, immediately after the signing of the Defense Department budget the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, stated “he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” [6] with the first request to be approximately $50 billion.

With the announcement on December 1 of another Afghan troop surge, the Pentagon’s requests for “emergency financing” can be expected to grow in both size and frequency. As with the claim of a troop withdrawal (or “drawdown”) by 2011, the alleged ending of war supplements is a public relations ploy and sleight of hand trick employed to beguile a gullible public.

Even in a world that over the last decade has been afflicted with such logical and moral affronts as humanitarian war and preemptive retaliation, awarding a peace prize to a war president represents a new nadir of cynical realpolitik and a flagrant endorsement of militarism, however well-disposed many may have been toward its most recent recipient.

1) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=15622&context=va
2) New York Times, December 7, 2009
3) Azeri Press Agency, December 8, 2009
4) Civil Georgia, December 5, 2009
5) Rustavi2, December 4, 2009
6) Associated Press, November 1, 2009

Categories: Uncategorized

U.S., NATO War In Afghanistan: Antecedents And Precedents

December 5, 2009 Leave a comment

Stop NATO
December 5, 2009

U.S., NATO War In Afghanistan: Antecedents And Precedents
Rick Rozoff

———-
The U.S. (and Britain) began bombing the Afghan capital of Kabul on October 7, 2001 with Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from warships and submarines and bombs dropped from warplanes and shortly thereafter American special forces began ground operations, a task that has been conducted since by regular Army and Marine units. The bombing and the ground combat operations continue more than eight years later and both will be intensified to record levels in short order.

The combined U.S. and NATO forces would represent a staggering number, in excess of 150,000 soldiers. By way of comparison, as of September of this year there were approximately 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and only a small handful of other nations’ personnel, those assigned to the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, remaining with them.

“Secretary Gates has made clear that the conflicts we’re in should be at the very forefront of our agenda. He wants to make sure we’re not giving up capabilities needed now for those needed for some unknown future conflict. He wants to make sure the Pentagon is truly on war footing….For the first time in decades, the political and economic stars are aligned for a fundamental overhaul of the way the Pentagon does business.”
———-

Over the past ten years citizens of the United States and other Western nations, and unfortunately most of the world, have become accustomed to Washington and its military allies in Europe and those appointed as armed outposts on the periphery of the “Euro-Atlantic community” engaging in armed aggression around the world.

Wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and lower profile military operations and surrogate campaigns in nations as diverse as Colombia, Yemen, the Philippines, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Ossetia and elsewhere have become an unquestioned prerogative of the U.S. and its NATO partners. So much so that many have forgotten to consider how comparable actions have been or might be viewed if a non-Western nation attempted them.

Thirty years ago this December 24 the first Soviet troops entered Afghanistan to assist a neighboring nation’s government to combat an armed insurgency based in Pakistan and surreptitiously (later quite openly) supported by the United States.

In the waning days of that year, 1979, and in the early ones of the following Soviet troop strength grew to some 50,000 soldiers.

(In 1839 Britain invaded Afghanistan with 21,000 of its own and Indian colonial troops and in 1878 with twice that number to counter Russian influence in the country in what came to be called the Great Game.)

On January 23, 1980 U.S. President James Earl (Jimmy) Carter stated in his last State of the Union Address that “The implications of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could pose the most serious threat to the peace since the Second World War.”

When the Soviet Union began withdrawing its forces from the nation – the first half from May 15 to August 16, 1988 and the last from November 15, 1988 to February 15, 1989 – their peak number had been slightly over 100,000.

On December 1 of 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he was deploying 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 68,000 already there and two days later “Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress…that the surge force of 30,000 going to Afghanistan will grow to at least 33,000 when support troops are included.” [1]

That is, over 100,000 troops. Along with private military and security contractors whose number is even larger.

Soviet troops were in Afghanistan barely over nine years. American troops are now involved in the ninth year of combat operations in the country and in less than four weeks will be engaged in their tenth calendar year of war there.

On November 25 White House spokesman Robert Gibbs assured the people of his nation that “We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years.” [2] The implication is that the U.S. may wage a war in Afghanistan that could last until 2017. For sixteen years.

The longest war in American history prior to the current one was that in Vietnam. U.S. military advisers were present in the country from the late 1950s onward and covert operations were carried on in the early 1960s, but only in the year after the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident – 1965 – did the Pentagon begin major combat operations in the south and regular bombing raids in the north. The last American combat unit left South Vietnam in 1972, seven years later.

The U.S. (and Britain) began bombing the Afghan capital of Kabul on October 7, 2001 with Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from warships and submarines and bombs dropped from warplanes and shortly thereafter American special forces began ground operations, a task that has been conducted since by regular Army and Marine units. The bombing and the ground combat operations continue more than eight years later and both will be intensified to record levels in short order.

Since late last summer the U.S. and its NATO allies have launched regular drone missile and attack helicopter assaults inside Pakistan. Had the Soviets attempted to do likewise thirty years ago – when their own borders were threatened – Washington’s response might well have triggered a third world war.

The USSR did not deploy troops from any of its fellow Warsaw Pact nations in Afghanistan during the 1980s. In a historical irony that warrants more commentary that it has received – none – every one of those nations now has forces serving under NATO and killing and dying in the Afghan war theater: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and the former German Democratic Republic (subsumed under a united Federal Republic, which has almost 4,500 soldiers stationed there).

They are among troops from close to 50 nations serving or soon to serve under NATO command on the Afghanistan-Pakistan war front, which include the following from the Alliance and several of its partnership programs:

NATO members:
Albania
Belgium
Britain
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
The Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
The United States (35,000 troops with as many more on the way)

Partnership for Peace/Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC):
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bosnia
Finland
Georgia
Ireland
Macedonia
Montenegro
Sweden
Switzerland (withdrawn last year)
Ukraine

Contact Countries:
Australia
Japan (naval forces)
New Zealand
South Korea

Adriatic Charter (overlaps with the Partnership for Peace):
Albania
Bosnia
Croatia
Macedonia
Montenegro

Istanbul Cooperation Initiative:
United Arab Emirates

Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission:
Afghanistan
Pakistan

Miscellaneous:

Colombia
Mongolia
Singapore

The above roster includes seven of fifteen former Soviet republics (another development worthy of consideration), with Moldova after this year’s “Twitter Revolution” and Kazakhstan, where in September the U.S. ambassador pressured the government for troops, candidates for deployments under Partnership for Peace obligations. (Both had earlier sent troops to Iraq.) Their participation would lead to 60% of former Soviet states having troops committed to NATO in Afghanistan. With Moldova added, every European nation (excluding microstates like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City) except for Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Russia and Serbia will have military forces serving under NATO in Afghanistan.

Never in the history of world warfare have military contingents from so many nations – fifty or more – served in one war theater. In a single nation. Troops from five continents, Oceania and the Middle East. [3]

Even the putative coalition of the willing stitched together by the U.S. and Britain after the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 and until troops were pulled for redeployment to Afghanistan only consisted of forces from thirty one nations: The U.S., Britain, Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Japan, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Thailand and Ukraine. Twenty two of those thirty one contributors were former Soviet bloc (Albania remotely) nations or former Yugoslav republics that had recently (1999) joined NATO or were being prepared for integration into or in other manners with the bloc.

The world’s last three major wars – those in and against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq – have been used as testing and training grounds for the expansion of global NATO.

The consolidation of an international rapid response (strike) force and occupation army under NATO control was further advanced this week with Obama’s troop surge speech on the 1st and follow-up efforts by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to recruit more allied troops at the recently concluded meeting of NATO (and allied) foreign ministers.

On December 4 “NATO’s top official said…that at least 25 countries will send a total of about 7,000 additional forces to Afghanistan next year ‘with more to come,’ as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to bolster allied resolve.” [4] In attendance at the NATO meeting in Brussels were also an unspecified number of foreign ministers of non-NATO nations providing troops for the Afghan war, top military commander of all U.S. and NATO forces General Stanley McChrystal and Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta.

7,000 more NATO troops with “more to come” would, added to some 42,000 non-U.S. soldiers currently serving with NATO and 35,000 U.S. forces doing the same, mean at least 85,000 troops under NATO command even without the 33,000 new U.S. troops headed to Afghanistan. The bloc’s largest foreign deployment before this was to Kosovo in 1999 when at its peak the Alliance-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) consisted of 50,000 troops from 39 nations. [5]

The combined U.S. and NATO forces would represent a staggering number, in excess of 150,000 soldiers. By way of comparison, as of September of this year there were approximately 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and only a small handful of other nations’ personnel, those assigned to the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, remaining with them.

Among NATO member states Italian Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa recently announced an increase of 1,000 troops, bringing the nation’s total to almost 4,500, 50% more than had previously been stationed in Iraq.

Poland will send another 600-700 troops which, added to those already in Afghanistan, will constitute the largest aggregate Polish military deployment abroad in the post-Cold War era and the highest number of troops ever deployed outside Europe in the nation’s history.

Britain will provide another 500 troops, with its total rising to close to 10,000.

Bulgarian Defense Minister Nikolay Mladenov said last week that “there is a strong possibility that the country will increase its military contingent in Afghanistan.” [6] To indicate the nature of the commitments new NATO member states shoulder when they join the Alliance and what their priority then becomes, three days earlier Mladenov, speaking of budgetary constraints placed on the armed forces because of the current financial crisis, affirmed that “We may cut down some other items of the army budget, but there will always be enough money for missions abroad.” [7]

Washington has also pressured Croatia, which became a full member of the bloc this past April, to supply more troops and Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor hastened to pledge that “Croatia, being a NATO member, would fulfill its obligations.” [8]

The Czech republic’s defense minister, Martin Bartak, spoke after the Obama troop surge speech earlier this week and threatened the Czech parliament by stating “it will have to be explained to allies why the Czech Republic does not want to take part in the reinforcements while Slovakia and Britain, for instance, will reinforce their contingents….” [9]

Slovakia has announced that it will more than double its forces in Afghanistan.

The German parliament has just renewed for another year the deployment of the nation’s almost 4,500 troops in Afghanistan, the maximum allowed by the Bundestag, although discussions are being held to increase that number to 7,000 after a conference on Afghanistan in London on January 28. German armed forces in the country are engaged in their nation’s first ground combat operations since World War II.

A news report on December 3 said that U.S. ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey was pressuring Ankara to provide a “specific number” of troops and to be “”more flexible” [10] in how they will be deployed, meaning that Turkey must drop so-called combat caveats and engage in active fighting along with its NATO allies.

After meeting with U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden on December 4, Hungarian Prime Minister Gyorgy Gordon Bajnai vowed to send 200 more soldiers to the South Asian war zone, an increase of 60% as Hungary currently has 360 there.

Regarding NATO partner states, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia Celeste Wallander was in Armenia to secure that nation’s first military deployment to Afghanistan, the handiwork of NATO’s first Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia Robert Simmons [11], who has also gained a doubling of troops from neighboring Azerbaijan and a pledge of as many as 1,000 Georgian troops by next year.

During a press conference at NATO headquarters on the first day of the Alliance’s recent Afghan war council, December 3, the bloc’s chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed gratitude to the United Arab Emirates for dispatching troops to Afghanistan and “hosting…the alliance’s International Conference on NATO-UAE Relations and the Way Forward in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative last October.” [12]

The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was launched at the NATO summit in Turkey in 2004 to upgrade military partnerships with members of the Mediterranean Dialogue (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). [13]

A U.S. military news agency published an article on December 3 that discussed the Quadrennial Defense Review currently being deliberated on at the Pentagon.

Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, who before assuming that post was Vice President of Government Operations and Strategy for Raytheon, was quoted as boasting that “The Quadrennial Defense Review…will be unlike any other: the first to be driven by current wartime requirements, to balance conventional and nonconventional capabilities, and to embrace a ‘whole of government’ approach to national security….This is a landmark QDR.”

Lynn also said that “Secretary Gates has made clear that the conflicts we’re in should be at the very forefront of our agenda. He wants to make sure we’re not giving up capabilities needed now for those needed for some unknown future conflict. He wants to make sure the Pentagon is truly on war footing….For the first time in decades, the political and economic stars are aligned for a fundamental overhaul of the way the Pentagon does business.” [14]

The more than eight-year war in Afghanistan is not going to end in 2011, Obama’s asseverations notwithstanding, nor will it be the last of its kind. It will continue to engulf neighboring Pakistan with the threat of also spilling over into Central Asia and Iran.

The crisis confronting the world is not only the war in South Asia: It is war itself. More particularly, the recklessness of the self-proclaimed sole superpower and the military bloc it heads in arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to threaten nations around the world with military aggression.

If that policy is not brought to an end by the real international community – the more than six-sevenths of humanity outside the greater Euro-Atlantic world (as it deems itself) – Afghanistan will not be this century’s last war front but its first and prototypical one. Portents are of even worse to come.

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/u-s-nato-poised-for-most-massive-war-in-afghanistans-history

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

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/mr-simmons-mission-nato-bases-from-balkans-to-chinese-border

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

Categories: Uncategorized

NATO’s Secret Transatlantic Bond: Nuclear Weapons In Europe

December 3, 2009 2 comments

Stop NATO
December 3, 2009

NATO’s Secret Transatlantic Bond: Nuclear Weapons In Europe
Rick Rozoff

———-
“Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.”

“Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.”

“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.”

“The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future.”
———-

Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike? Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?…Germany’s air force couldn’t possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?

The above is from the opening paragraph of a feature in Time magazine’s online edition of December 2, one entitled “What to Do About Europe’s Secret Nukes.”

In response to the rhetorical queries posed it adopts the deadly serious tone befitting the subject in stating, “It is Europe’s dirty secret that the list of nuclear-capable countries extends beyond those — Britain and France — who have built their own weapons. Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands — and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them.”

The author of the article, Eben Harrell, who wrote an equally revealing piece for the same news site in June of 2008, cites the Federation of American Scientists as asserting that there are an estimated 200 American B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed in the four NATO member states listed above. A fifth NATO nation that is home to the warheads, Turkey, is not dealt with in the news story. In the earlier Times article alluded to previously, author Harrell wrote that “The U.S. keeps an estimated 350 thermonuclear bombs in six NATO countries.” [1] They are three variations of the B61, “up to 10 [or 13] times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb” [2] – B61-3s, B61-4s and B61-10s – stationed on eight bases in Alliance states.

The writer reminded the magazine’s readers that “Under a NATO agreement struck during the Cold War, the bombs, which are technically owned by the U.S., can be transferred to the control of a host nation’s air force in times of conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.” [3]

The B61 is the Pentagon’s mainstay hydrogen weapon, a “lightweight bomb [that can] be delivered by…Air Force, Navy and NATO planes at very high altitudes and at speeds above Mach 2.”

Also, it “can be dropped at high speeds from altitudes as low as 50 feet. As many as 22 different varieties of aircraft can carry the B61 externally or internally. This weapon can be dropped either by free-fall or as parachute-retarded; it can be detonated either by air burst or ground burst.” [4]

The warplanes capable of transporting and using the bomb include new generation U.S. stealth aircraft such as the B-2 bomber and the F-35 Lightning II (multirole Joint Strike Fighter), capable of penetrating air defenses and delivering both conventional and nuclear payloads.

The Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike program, which “could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal,” including “the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph,” [5] could be configured for use in Europe also, as the U.S. possesses cruise missiles with nuclear warheads for deployment on planes and ships. But the warplanes mandated to deliver American nuclear weapons in Europe are those of its NATO allies, including German Tornados, variants of which were used in NATO’s 1999 air war against Yugoslavia and are currently deployed in Afghanistan.

There are assumed to be 130 U.S. nuclear warheads at the Ramstein and 20 at the Buechel airbases in Germany and 20 at the Kleine Brogel Air Base in Belgium. Additionally, there are reports of dozens more in Italy (at Aviano and Ghedi) and even more, the largest amount of American nuclear weapons outside the United States itself, in Turkey at the Incirlik airbase. [6]

Not only are the warheads stationed in NATO nations but are explicitly there as part of a sixty-year policy of the Alliance, in fact a major cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. An article in this series written before the bloc’s sixtieth anniversary summit in France and Germany this past April, NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe [7], examined the inextricable link between the founding of NATO in 1949 and the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems in Europe. One of the main purposes of founding the Alliance was exactly to allow for the basing and use of American nuclear arms on the continent.

Seven months after the creation of the bloc, the NATO Defense Doctrine of November 1949 called for insuring “the ability to carry out strategic bombing including the prompt delivery of the atomic bomb. This is primarily a US responsibility assisted as practicable by other nations.” [8]

The current NATO Handbook contains a section titled NATO’s Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment which contains this excerpt:

“During the Cold War, NATO’s nuclear forces played a central role in the Alliance’s strategy of flexible response….[N]uclear weapons were integrated into the whole of NATO’s force structure, and the Alliance maintained a variety of targeting plans which could be executed at short notice. This role entailed high readiness levels and quick-reaction alert postures for significant parts of NATO’s nuclear forces.” [9]

At no time was the deployment and intended use of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe part of a nuclear deterrence strategy. The former Soviet Union was portrayed as having a conventional arms superiority in Europe and U.S. and NATO doctrine called for the first use of nuclear bombs. The latter were based in several NATO states on the continent as part of what was called a “nuclear sharing” or “nuclear burden sharing” arrangement: Although the bombs stored in Europe were American and under the control of the Pentagon, war plans called for their being loaded onto fellow NATO nation’s bombers for use against the Soviet Union and its (non-nuclear) Eastern European allies. The USSR itself, incidentally, didn’t successfully test its first atomic bomb until four months after NATO was formed.

With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, formed six years after NATO and in response to the inclusion of the Federal Republic of Germany in the bloc (and the U.S. moving nuclear weapons into the nation), and of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, the Pentagon withdrew the bulk of 7,000 warheads it had maintained in Europe, but still maintains hundreds of tactical nuclear bombs.

At the 1999 NATO fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C., during which the bloc was conducting its first war, the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, and expanding to incorporate three former Warsaw Pact members (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland), it also approved its new and still operative Strategic Concept which states in part:

“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.

“A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity…continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements. Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.” [10]

The Time report of 2008 wrote of the ongoing policy that it is:

“A ‘burden-sharing’ agreement that has been at the heart of NATO military policy since its inception.

“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.” [11]

It also discussed the Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures released in February of 2008 which “recommended that American nuclear assets in Europe be consolidated, which analysts interpret as a recommendation to move the bombs to NATO bases under ‘U.S. wings,’ meaning American bases in Europe.” [12}

Both Time articles by Eben Harrell, that of last year and that of this month, emphasize that the basing of nuclear warheads on the territory of non-nuclear nations – and Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are non-nuclear nations – is a gross violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], whose first two Articles state, respectively:

“Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.”

“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” [13]

The Time piece of December 2, then, points out that the continued presence of U.S. nuclear warheads in Europe is “more than an anachronism or historical oddity. They [the weapons] are a violation of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)….”

“Because ‘nuclear burden-sharing,’ as the dispersion of B61s in Europe is called, was set up before the NPT came into force, it is technically legal. But as signatories to the NPT, the four European countries and the U.S. have pledged ‘not to receive the transfer…of nuclear weapons or control over such weapons directly, or indirectly.’ That, of course, is precisely what the long-standing NATO arrangement entails.” [14]

The author also mentioned the report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, Phase I [15] of which was released in September and Phase II [16] in December of 2008. The second part of the report contains a section called Deterrence: The Special Case of NATO which states:

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) represents a special case for deterrence, both because of history and the presence of nuclear weapons….[T]he presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe remains a pillar of NATO unity. The deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe is not a Service or regional combatant command issue — it is an Alliance issue. As long as NATO members rely on U.S. nuclear weapons for deterrence — and as long as they maintain their own dual-capable aircraft as part of that deterrence — no action should be taken to remove them without a thorough and deliberate process of consultation.

“The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future.

“The Department of Defense should ensure that the dual-capable F-35 remains on schedule. Further delays would result in increasing levels of political and strategic risk and reduced strategic options for both the United States and the Alliance.”

The F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter multirole warplane discussed earlier, which its manufacturer Lockheed Martin boasts “Provides the United States and allied governments with an affordable, stealthy 5TH generation fighter for the 21st century.” [17]

Far from the end of the Cold War signaling the elimination of the danger of a nuclear catastrophe in Europe, in many ways matters are now even more precarious. NATO’s expansion over the past decade has now brought it to Russia’s borders. Five full member states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Poland) and as many Partnership for Peace adjuncts (Azerbaijan, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) directly adjoin Russian territory and for over five years NATO warplanes have conducted air patrols over the Baltic Sea region, a three-minute flight from St. Petersburg. [18]

If launching the first unprovoked armed assault against a European nation since Hitler’s wars of 1939-1941 ten years ago and currently conducting the world’s longest and most large-scale war in South Asia were not reasons enough to demand the abolition of the world’s only military bloc, so-called global NATO, then the Alliance’s insistence on the right to station – and employ – nuclear weapons in Europe is certainly sufficient grounds for its consignment to the dark days of the Cold War and to oblivion.

1) Time, June 19, 2008
2) Ibid
3) Time, December 2, 2009 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
4) Global Security

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm

5) Popular Mechanics, January 2007
6) Turkish Daily News, June 30, 2008
7) NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe
Stop NATO, March 31, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe

8) http://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf
9) http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0206.htm
10) NATO, April 24, 1999 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm
11) Time, June 19, 2008
12) Ibid
13) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
14) Time, December 2, 2009
15) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf
16) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf
17) Lockheed Martin

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35

18) Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict
Stop NATO, February 27, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/baltic-sea-flash-point-for-nato-russia-conflict

Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO’s War Plans For The High North
Stop NATO, June 14, 2009 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/scandinavia-and-the-baltic-sea-natos-war-plans-for-the-high-north

Categories: Uncategorized

Loose Cannon And Nuclear Submarines: West Prepares For Arctic Warfare

December 1, 2009 3 comments

Stop NATO
December 1, 2009

Loose Cannon And Nuclear Submarines: West Prepares For Arctic Warfare
Rick Rozoff

———-
The Arctic Ocean, in particular that part of it under the ice cap, is Russia’s last retaliatory refuge, that spot on the earth where any element of its strategic forces is comparatively safe from a Western first strike and least targetable by interceptor missiles after such an attack.

That Canada has advanced to the front rank of Western nations confronting and challenging a disproportionately stronger Russia in the Arctic strongly suggests that it has been put up to the task. Being a smaller and weaker nation allows it to be cast in the role of a sympathetic victim of “Russian aggression,” much like Estonia two years ago with alleged cyber attacks and Georgia last year after its invasion of South Ossetia. Leading Western elected officials were champing at the bit to activate NATO’s Article 5 in the last two cases (even though Georgia is not yet a full member of the bloc), and Canada could provide a casus belli impossible to resist.
———-

This year is ending as it began, with heightened U.S. interest in the Arctic Ocean. For energy, transportation and military purposes. Especially the third.

An American website has scanned and posted a 36-page document released by the U.S. Department of the Navy on November 10, 2009 called Navy Arctic Roadmap [1]

The paper states that “The primary policy guidance statements influencing this roadmap are the National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25) and the Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (CS21).” [2] The second policy document was issued by the U.S. Navy on October of 2007 and the first, the National Security Directive, was written on January 9 of this year. A previous article in this series examined the second in detail shortly after it was made public. [3]

The key components of January’s National Security Directive are these, the first reproduced verbatim:

“The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.”

The document also speaks unapologetically of the intent to “Preserve the global mobility of United States military and civilian vessels and aircraft throughout the Arctic region” and stipulates in its fourth point that “The Senate should act favorably on U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea promptly, to protect and advance U.S. interests, including with respect to the Arctic. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain.” [4]

A Russian news source commented four days after the directive’s release as follows: “In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military ’sea power’ over the oil-rich Arctic in a fresh effort to ensure permanent American presence in the region and the deployment of missile defense facilities there.

“According to the text of a sweeping new directive on the Arctic released just eight days before Barack Obama is to be sworn in, the United States declares the territories within the Arctic Circle a zone of its strategic interests and the new Administration is advised to expand the US foothold in the Arctic.” [5]

Indeed the new American administration has here as in most every other instance proven a faithful enforcer of its predecessor’s geopolitical blueprints.

Less than three weeks after the Bush White House unveiled its new Arctic strategy, NATO held a hastily convened two-day meeting in Iceland attended by its secretary general and its top military commanders. The get-together, called a Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North, dutifully followed the American Arctic initiative and proclaimed that “the High North is going to require even more of the Alliance’s attention in the coming years.” [6]

Four of the five official Arctic claimants – the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway – were represented as founding members of the military bloc; Russia was not invited to send even an observer.

Another Russian news report wrote of the inescapable logic of the meeting: “NATO is seriously thinking of [establishing] military presence in the Arctic. It considers global warming and consequently an Arctic thaw as an occasion for this. NATO sees this as a possibility for its Arctic expansion.

“When taking into account the fact that all Arctic littoral nations but Russia are NATO member countries, it is quite clear who the alliance considers its rival in this region.” [7]

In the intervening months the four NATO members with longstanding territorial claims in the region – Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States – have made military moves into the Arctic Circle in fulfillment of the Alliance’s pledge in January.

Norway has moved its Operational Command Headquarters into the Arctic and purchased 48 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets for Arctic patrols, and Denmark announced plans to establish an all-service Arctic Command, an Arctic Response Force and a military buildup at the Thule airbase in Greenland, to be shared with its NATO allies. [8]

Great Britain, Finland and Sweden have been conscripted into the common effort, the latter two nations having been surreptitiously integrated into NATO behind the backs of their peoples. [9]

But it is Canada that has been appointed the role of vanguard in the impending showdown with Russia over the Arctic. Specifically, over the Lomonosov Ridge which runs 1,800 kilometers from Russia’s New Siberian Islands through the center of the Arctic Ocean to Canada’s Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. [10]

Ottawa has conducted its largest-ever military exercises, established new bases and exhibited increasing truculence and saber-rattling toward Russia in the region.

Washington, although it along with Brussels is employing Canada to confront Russia at the top of the world, is not shy in asserting its own military presence and pursuing its own geostrategic objectives in the Arctic.

The Navy Arctic Roadmap – a curious choice of nouns when speaking of a part of the globe without land – as the document itself takes pains to point out, proceeds from the National Security Directive of the beginning of the year and reaffirms most of the latter’s major goals.

It highlights these strategic components for the intensified application of military deployments in the Arctic region:

Strategy, policy, mission and plans

Operations and training

Investments in weapons, platforms, sensors, command, control. communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C41SR) installations, and facilities

Strategic communications and outreach

In another section of the document these are the four operations mentioned first:

Undersea Warfare

Expeditionary Warfare

Strike Warfare

Strategic Sealift

The Navy Arctic Roadmap also states that “the naval services must be prepared to prevent or limit regional conflict when required,” giving particular emphasis to strategic deterrence and ballistic missile defense. [11]

A reiteration of the priorities itemized in the National Security Presidential Directive 66 ten months earlier.

What the practical implementation of this policy means is the expanded penetration of the Arctic Circle by the U.S. Navy’s submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) third of the American nuclear triad, as will be examined later, and the extension of plans for a U.S.-NATO-Asian NATO worldwide interceptor missile system already being put into place near Russia’s western, southern and eastern borders. U.S. and NATO radar, submarine and missile deployments in the so-called High North will complete the encirclement.

The U.S. and Britain have conducted joint submarine warfare exercises under the polar ice cap over the past three years, Operation Ice Exercise 2007 and Operation Ice Exercise 2009. A U.S. Navy website said during the first exercise that “The submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean as an alternate route for shifting submarines between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans….Submarines can reach the western Pacific directly by transiting through international waters of the Arctic rather than through the Panama Canal.” [12]

The Arctic Ocean, in particular that part of it under the ice cap, is Russia’s last retaliatory refuge, that spot on the earth where any element of its strategic forces is comparatively safe from a Western first strike and least targetable by interceptor missiles after such an attack.

Earlier this month the American attack submarine the USS Texas “completed an Arctic mission, with some U.S. media outlets noting the nuclear-powered submarine broke through the ice near the North Pole and stayed on the surface for 24 hours.” [13]

A Canadian news agency reported that the government’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Alain Cacchione “said information about submarine operations is considered secret. He noted…that Canada permits shipping through its Arctic waters….” [14]

A rather broad definition of shipping, to be sure, but Cacchione’s attempt at evasiveness wore thin when he added “There are safety protocols in place under NATO that provide for the exchange of information on allied submarine movements….” [15] That is, the U.S. submarine was off the Canadian coast with Ottawa’s full knowledge. And blessings. “The U.S. navy did not release details on what, if any, weapons tests were performed by the Texas.” Nor did the Canadian government ask, even though January’s U.S. National Security Directive explicitly challenges Canada’s claim to exclusive rights over the legendary Northwest Passage, now navigable for the first time in recorded history.

Instead, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon “have taken a hard line in regard to excursions by the Russians into the Arctic. Earlier this year, [Defence Minister Peter] MacKay accused the Russians of sending military aircraft too close to Canadian northern airspace. He vowed that Canadian Forces CF-18 fighter aircraft would intercept Russian aircraft each and every time they came near the country.”

By excursions (perhaps the word intended was incursions) are meant routine patrols over neutral, international waters conducted according to the terms of the relevant treaties.

“In March, Cannon said Canada ‘will not be bullied’ by a Russian plan to create a new security force for the Arctic.” [16]

If loose lips could sink ships, Harper, Cannon and McKay would have sent the entire Russian navy to the bottom of the Arctic and the North Atlantic. All three have delivered a steady stream of exhortations, bluster and downright threats to Russia throughout the year.

This blunt, eminently non-diplomatic, and incessant saber-rattling by a relatively minor military and international political player would not persist for as long as it has – questionable domestic gains notwithstanding – if the three ministers were not assured of support from the United States and NATO. In the second case, the Article 5 mutual obligation to engage in armed intervention if any member state requests it. In fact Canada has nothing to back it up except for its military ties with Washington and the Alliance.

That Canada has advanced to the front rank of Western nations confronting and challenging a disproportionately stronger Russia in the Arctic strongly suggests that it has been put up to the task. Being a smaller and weaker nation allows it to be cast in the role of a sympathetic victim of “Russian aggression,” much like Estonia two years ago with alleged cyber attacks and Georgia last year after its invasion of South Ossetia. Leading Western elected officials were champing at the bit to activate NATO’s Article 5 in the last two cases (even though Georgia is not yet a full member of the bloc), and Canada could provide a casus belli impossible to resist.

In line with that scenario, the Canadian foreign affairs minister, the self-styled Lawrence of the Arctic, was back on the warpath on November 23, warning “the world…that this country will respond ‘firmly’ when other nations ‘push the envelope’ with military exercises or other provocative actions anywhere along Canada’s northern frontier.” [17]

He was not, of course, referring to the United States or Great Britain or Denmark, who as NATO allies are allowed to parade their military presence off Canada’s coast as they choose to do. He singled out Russia.

Cannon spoke three days after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia. “The future of NATO and international claims on untapped Arctic oil [also] dominated discussions, largely behind closed doors, between Gates and top officials from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Germany, India, New Zealand, and the Netherlands.

“Gates announced…that Washington planned to boost cooperation with Canada in the Arctic, as Russia and others eye its vast energy and mineral resources.” [18]

Cannon’s – laughable except for the broader context – comments were made at the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto where he retrieved a chestnut from the archives (“Arctic superpower” and “energy superpower” from last August) and “said the country’s future as an ‘energy superpower’ is closely tied to potentially rich deposits of Arctic oil and gas on land and seabed.” [19]

This year’s study by the U.S. Geological Survey “assessed the area north of the Arctic Circle and concluded that about 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil may be found there, mostly offshore under less than 500 meters of water. Undiscovered natural gas is three times more abundant than oil in the Arctic and is largely concentrated in Russia.” [20]

Hence Cannon’s assertion that “This is why we react so strongly when other nations, like Russia, engage in exercises and other activities that appear to challenge our security in the North….” [21]

Three North American news sources, one Canadian and two U.S., all not unsympathetic to the initiative, recently wrote about the new Navy Arctic Roadmap.

The National Post recently published this:

“The U.S. Navy is planning a massive push into the Arctic to defend national security, potential undersea riches and other maritime interests.

“An ‘Arctic road map’ released by the Department of the Navy details a five-year strategic plan to expand fleet operations into the North in the expectation the frozen Arctic Ocean will be open water in summer by 2030.

“[I]t is clear the United States is intent on seriously retooling its military presence and naval combat capabilities in a region increasingly seen as a potential flashpoint as receding polar ice allows easier access.” [22]

An American source which linked the online version of the Roadmap added of it in relation to U.S.-Canadian collaboration in the Arctic:

“It includes a comprehensive, three-phase outline of measures the Navy hopes to undertake in the Arctic region within four years: develop new, resilient vessels and weaponry; map the seabed floor for potential resources and geological information; and innovate diagnostic tools to more accurately predict when the cap will thaw.

“Even as the ratification process lurches through the Senate, the U.S. Navy is launching the first phases of its program. In August, Navy service-members and administrators took part in a Canadian training program, Nanook, where they learned tactical strategy for rugged climates and underwent disaster-relief training. In October, the United States Naval War College hosted the 19th biennial Seapower Symposium, where American and Canadian Naval administrators discussed their 6,500-nautical-mile dispute over waterway boundaries.” [23]

Third, with the unabashed title of “U.S. Navy Prepares for Militarization of the Arctic,” another report revealed that “the U.S. Navy is…planning for potential combat situations that may arise once global warming has melted the Arctic Ocean’s summer ice within two decades. A 35-page memo from the Department of the Navy spells out a five-year plan expressing the need to develop new technology and strategies in the event things become contentious in the open waters of the Arctic Circle by 2030.” [24]

As the U.S. and NATO campaign in Afghanistan is being intensified to an all-time high level of fighting (with more foreign troops in that nation than at any previous period in its history), with the Pentagon expanding into Colombia in a move that could trigger a regional and even continental war, and with Western proxies in the South Caucasus eager to launch new armed hostilities on Russia’s southern border, even the top of the world, the remote Arctic Circle, is not being spared the threat of war.

1) http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/11/us-navy-arctic-roadmap-nov-2009.pdf
2) Ibid
3) NATO’s, Pentagon’s New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
February 2, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/natos-pentagons-new-strategic-battleground-the-arctic

4) National Security Presidential Directive 66

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm

5) Voice of Russia, January 16, 2009
6) NATO, January 29, 2009
7) Voice of Russia, January 30, 2009
8) Encroachment From All Compass Points: Canada Leads NATO Confrontation With
Russia In North
Stop NATO, August 5, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/encroachment-from-all-compass-points-canada-leads-nato-confrontation-with-russia-in-north

9) End of Scandinavian Neutrality: NATO’s Militarization Of Europe
Stop NATO, April 10, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/end-of-scandinavian-neutrality-natos-militarization-of-europe

10) Canada: Battle Line In East-West Conflict Over The Arctic
Stop NATO, June 3, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/canada-battle-line-in-east-west-conflict-over-the-arctic

11) Navy Arctic Roadmap, November 10, 2009
12) Navy NewsStand, March 20, 2007
13) Canwest News Service, November 16, 2009
14) Ibid
15) Ibid
16) Ibid
17) Canwest News Service, November 24, 2009
18) Agence France-Presse, November 22, 2009
19) Ibid
20) Science, May 29, 2009
21) Canwest News Service, November 24, 2009
22) National Post, November 27
23) World Politics Review, November 30, 2009
24) AllGov, November 30, 2009

Categories: Uncategorized
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 504 other followers