British troops 'cannot bear brunt of Barack Obama's Afghanistan surge'

[Coventina]

Source: The Telegraph

British troops must not be sent in support of US President-Elect Barack Obama's planned "surge" in Afghanistan, the head of the armed forces has said.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, warned that the British military was already over-stretched, and suggested that troops from other Nato countries should be sent to fight.

Mr Obama has spoken of his desire to see a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan, similar to that which appears to have had success against extremists in Iraq, to finally quell the Taliban insurgency.

But Sir Jock said that British troops were already struggling to cope with fighting in the two theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan, and could not take on more demands.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3411286/British-troops-cannot-bear-brunt-of-Barack-Obamas-Afghanistan-surge.html

---

Here it comes....

Even though this whole thing is the fault of George W. Bush, the ultimate blame will be placed on Barak Obama....

(That's what I fear, anyway).

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Typical of the Torygraph

I prefer to wait & see what more moderate UK papers have to say.

[High Plains]

2. We need to get out of Afghanistan, not step deeper into the mire.

We've been there seven years, managed to kill tens of thousands of Afghans and install a puppet regime, but little else.

I'm not supporting more imperial war, no matter which party is in control. Or are the Democrats just the left wing of the Single Unified Capitalist War Party?

[louis-t]

4. A puppet regime that contols Kabul only.

Warlords control the rest of the country.

[saigon68]

10. The war Lords supported by our NARCOTICS INDUSTRY

[formercia]

19. A trade they learned from the Brits

Opium grown in India during the Raj was shipped to China and elsewhere, all to fill the coffers of the British Monarchy and intermediaries.

[saigon68]

23. And traded for Tea

And the monopoly of the British East India Co.

[formercia]

27. British East India Company, the Walmart of its day

Porcelain, silk, tea and other cheap trade goods produced with cheap Chinese labor. The Chinese wanted Silver in exchange but this cause a deficit. The Brits found that they could produce Opium using cheap Indian labor and use that to pay for the goods instead. This led to the Opium Wars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Today, instead of Opium, it's Oil.

[Mari333]

13. amen!!!!! n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

17. A good war gone bad?

Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad

By LARRY EVEREST

For the people of Azizabad, a small village in western Afghanistan, the dark early morning hours of August 22, 2008 suddenly turned into a nightmare of devastation and death. As villagers slept, U.S. forces attacked—first with guns, then air strikes. By the next morning, according to UN investigators, over 90 people had been massacred, including 60 children and 15 women.

The U.S. military initially claimed they had hit a "legitimate" Taliban target, that only 5 to 7 civilians were killed—so-called "collateral damage"—and the other 30 to 35 dead were Taliban militants. These were lies.

Journalists who traveled to the village reported: "At the battle scene, shell craters dotted the courtyards and shrapnel had gouged holes in the walls. Rooms had collapsed and mud bricks and torn clothing lay in uneven mounds where people had been digging. In two places blood was splattered on a ceiling and a wall....The smell of bodies lingered in one compound, causing villagers to start digging with spades. They found the body of a baby, caked in dust, in the corner of a bombed-out room." Survivors "described repeated strikes on houses where dozens of children were sleeping, grandparents and uncles and aunts huddled inside with them." (New York Times, September 8, 2008)

SNIP

One thing that’s not been up for debate in the Presidential campaign is Afghanistan: both candidates (not to mention George W. Bush) agree on the urgent need to escalate – and win – that war. This stance has overwhelmingly gone unchallenged – even by most who opposed the invasion of Iraq. But the war in Afghanistan is not the proverbial "good war," now gone bad. It was an unjust, imperialist war of conquest and empire from the start. And it continues to be an unjust, imperialist war of empire today.

The war in Afghanistan was never simply a response to 9/11. It was conceived of by the Bush administration as the opening salvo in an unbounded war for greater empire under the rubric of a "war on terror." This war’s goal was to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, overthrow states not fully under U.S. control, restructure the Middle East and Central Asian regions, and seize deeper control of key sources and shipment routes of strategic energy supplies. All this grew out of over a decade of imperialist planning, strategizing and intervention. And from the beginning all of it was part of an overall plan to expand and fortify U.S. power—to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable global imperialist empire.

http://www.counterpunch.org/everest10172008.html

Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time
By Craig Murray

SNIP

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government ? the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons ? especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance ? to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469983/Britain-protecting-biggest-heroin-crop-time.html

[HopeFor2006]

3. Don't we have more support in Afghanistan than in Iraq?

It's not as if Britain is the only ally we can depend on there.

[panader0]

5. "Jock Stirrup"? That sounds like it's straight out of Monty Python.

[Greeby]

6. "Jock" is his nickname from his RAF days, his real first name is Graham

He's my uncle. Although we might as well live on different planets for all it matters

[enlightenment]

9. Not sure how I feel about his policies -

but I LOVE the name with the titles.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup.

Was he a fighter jock?

[Greeby]

16. Umm, he's the highest ranking military officer in this country

Ergo, he has no policies. At least he better bloody not

[enlightenment]

21. I probably should have written "choice of words"

A poor choice of words on my part!

[balantz]

7. Why are we there? We need to get out.

When BOTH Towers fell within a couple hours of being hit and the subsequent "investigation" reported their falling was due to jet fuel fires we could see by that alone it was an inside job. Why are we in Afghanistan? It isn't to look for Bin Laden. We need Obama to state the truth and get us out of there, unless he is supporting corporate imperialism.

[leftchick]

8. Obama has a flawed strategy towards Afghanistan

it is FUBAR and no amount of troops from anywhere will fix it. Think 1980s and Russia.

[Dover]

11. Like Iraq, our presence in Afghanistan is tied to our Foreign Energy policy.

A rather dated one, that has changed little.

See the Silk Road Strategy bill 0f 1999, and updated in 2006. Lugar, Hagel, Biden, Dodd and others all had a hand in it. So if we want to know what our disputes in Afghanistan/Pakistan are about, then we should start there.

The Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=171417

[Mari333]

14. bookmarking that page

its still about securing oil isnt it. thats all.
and our soldiers die for nothing .

[Dover]

15. Keep in mind this was just a few years before we initially went into Afghanistan "after bin Laden"

Here's just a small section of the 1998 version. The 2006 bill updates things according to new 'on the ground' info. Unocal eventually backed away
from the pipeline deal...for the time being.

------

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to have your attendance today. We look forward to your testimony. Proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. GEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. GEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Gee, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Energy. I am pleased and honored to appear before this Committee today to report on the U.S. energy policy in the Caspian region. I welcome the opportunity to discuss our government's strategic and economic interests in this important region, our policy to advance those interests, and how we can achieve our goals.
I also appreciate the opportunity to appear before you as you begin consideration of H.R. 2867, the House version of the Silk Road Strategy Act. While the Administration does not yet have a formal position on the bill, the underlying theme of the proposed legislation is consistent with our policy objectives and strategic goals in the region.
To begin, you may ask why is the United States active in the region? The United States has energy security, strategic, and commercial interests in promoting Caspian region energy development. We have an interest in strengthening global energy security through diversification, and the development of these new sources of supply. Caspian export routes would diversify rather than concentrate world energy supplies, while avoiding over-reliance on the Persian Gulf.
We have strategic interests in supporting the independence, sovereignty, and prosperity of the Newly Independent States of the Caspian Basin. We want to assist the development of these States into democratic, sovereign members of the world community of nations, enjoying unfettered access to world markets without pressure or undue influence from regional powers.

Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also have an interest in maximizing commercial opportunities for U.S. firms and for U.S. and other foreign investment in the region's energy development. In short, our interests are rooted in achieving multiple objectives. Rapid development of the region's energy resources and trade linkages are critical to the independence, prosperity, democracy, and stability of all of the countries of that region.
Four factors frame our policy. First, promoting multiple export routes. The Administration's policy is centered on rapid development of the region's resources and the transportation and sale of those resources to hard-currency markets to secure the independence of these new countries. Accordingly, our government has promoted the development of multiple pipelines and diversified infrastructure networks to open and integrate these countries into the global market and to foster regional cooperation.
We have given priority to supporting efforts by the regional governments themselves and the private sector to develop and improve east-west trade linkages and infrastructure networks through Central Asia and the Caucasus. A Eurasian energy transport corridor incorporating a trans-Caspian segment with a route from Baku, Azerbaijan, through the Caucasus and Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan is inclusive, providing benefits to transit as well as energy-producing countries.
Second, emphasizing commerciality. While we recognize the influence regional politics will play on the development of export routes, we have always maintained that commercial considerations will principally determine the outcome. These massive infrastructure projects must be commercially competitive before the private sector and the international financial community can move forward. Our support of specific pipelines, such as the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline and trans-Caspian oil and gas lines, is not driven by any desire to intervene in private commercial decisions. Rather, it derives from our conclusion that it is not in the commercial interest of companies operating in the Caspian States, nor in the strategic interests of those host States, to rely on a major competitor for transit rights.

Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In general, we support those transportation solutions that are commercially viable and address our environmental concerns and policy objectives. Based on discussions with the companies involved, a Baku-Ceyhan pipeline appears to be the most viable option. We have urged the Turks to take steps to make Baku-Ceyhan a commercially attractive option. For our part, we are also looking at steps the United States can take to provide political risk guarantees and to foster cooperation among the regional States on an approach that can lead to a regional solution for the longer term.
Third, cooperating with Russia. Our Caspian policy is not intended to bypass or to thwart Russia. In fact, two key projects closest to fruition go through Russia, those of the Azerbaijan International Operating Company northern early pipeline, and the Caspian Pipeline Consortium from Kazakhstan through Russia to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. We have also financed a major study to look at ways to export more volumes through the existing Russian pipeline system.
Russia is in the midst of tremendous change in its energy policy, moving toward privatization and embracing market reform. Russian energy companies are deeply involved in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. We support continued Russian participation in Caspian production and transportation. We would also welcome their participation in the Eurasian corridor. U.S. companies are working in partnership with Russian firms in the Caspian, and there will be future opportunities to expand that commercial cooperation.
Development of the region's energy resources creates opportunities for these countries to cooperate in new ways for the benefit of all. The pace and extent of that regional cooperation will have a direct effect upon the future economic prosperity of the individual States.
The United States supports regional approaches to Caspian energy development. The Eurasian corridor will enhance Turkey's energy security through diversification, and will ensure that Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have reliable and diversified outlets for their resources.

Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This corridor also addresses squarely the environmental issues associated with the Bosporus. We share Turkey's environmental concerns about the potential increase in traffic through the straits. Further, we seek to avoid having the Bosporus become a chokepoint for a significant share of the world's oil supplies, heightening environmental concerns and possibly impeding the development of Caspian energy.
Fourth, isolating Iran. Our policy on Iran is unchanged. The U.S. Government opposes pipelines through Iran. Development of Iran's oil and gas industry and pipelines from the Caspian Basin south through Iran will seriously undercut the development of east-west infrastructure, and give Iran improper leverage over the economies of the Caucasus and Central Asian States. Moreover, from an energy security standpoint, it makes no sense to move yet more energy resources through the Persian Gulf, a potential major hot spot or chokepoint. From an economic standpoint, Iran competes with Turkmenistan for the lucrative Turkish gas market. Turkmenistan could provide the gas to build the pipeline, only to see itself displaced ultimately by Iran's own gas exports.
How are we implementing U.S. policy? First, we have stepped up our engagement with the regional governments through Cabinet level and senior level visits to the region, and have established formal government-to-government dialogs. We also have invited regional leaders to Washington. Our Cabinet officers also are deeply engaged. Last fall Secretary Pena led a very successful Presidential mission to Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkmenistan. Secretary Daly recently returned from a trade mission to Turkey. I had the privilege of leading an inter-agency delegation to Turkey in mid-January to discuss Turkey's strategy for moving forward with development of its energy sector, meeting the growing demand for electricity, diversifying its gas supplies, and identifying further steps for the developing and constructing of oil and gas pipelines through Turkey.
Second, we are pursuing an aggressive strategy with the regional governments. The Eurasian energy transport corridor, spanning at least six countries and disputed regions, presents complicated problems for even the most efficient governments. The number of potential players ensures that negotiations and equity structures will be enormously complicated. The United States has stressed the importance of achieving agreement on concrete project proposals among the relevant countries as early as possible. Along these lines, we have encouraged the regional governments to accelerate multilateral discussions with their neighboring States and with the private sector shippers through the establishment of national working groups. These groups have a critical role in resolving regulatory, legal, tariff, and other issues that will make the Eurasian corridor most commercially attractive.

Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In sum, we enthusiastically support an ongoing dialog with Congress on Caspian and Central Asian issues. We also support and encourage the positive contribution of the numerous congressional delegations that have traveled to the Caspian region. We must maintain the momentum behind our support for these governments and for our private sector. Developments this year will be critical in advancing regional energy development and export. We look forward to working with you in meeting the upcoming challenges.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I stand available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

..snip..

Mr. BEREUTER. Switching geography slightly, what is the status of proposals by Unocal and others to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan?
Mr. GEE. Perhaps the Unocal witness can give you more detail. I do understand that they do have an agreement with the government of Turkmenistan. They have also been in discussions with the various factions within Afghanistan through which that proposed pipeline would be routed.
The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines with the exception of the southern pipeline that would transit Iran. The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our support under that policy.
I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.
Mr. BEREUTER. Secretary Gee, could you briefly tell us what the formal Chinese involvement in the region is at this moment with respect to energy resources?

[bvar22]

20. It is about securing oil for Exxon.

You know, if it was about securing oil for the American people, I could understand it....not support it, but understand it.

The soldiers dying for it, and the American Taxpayers who are paying for it will NEVER see a drop unless the BUY IT from Exxon and friends at a HUGE mark up.

So the reality of it is that our soldiers are not dying for oil, but are dying for the gluttonous profits of CEOs and The Investor Class.





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Solly Mack]

12. ...

...

[formercia]

18. The Brits still have not learned their lesson in Afghanistan

I was impressed by the number of British graves in the Punjab, a reminder of the Raj.

I guess the one positive thing about it is that the Brits taught the Pakistanis how to manage a proper bureaucracy, so this time around, the the killing will be in an orderly and efficient manner.

[ACTION BASTARD]

24. Even Alexander The Great learned the hard way from his campaign in the 'Stan

These are people NOT to be trifled with.

[formercia]

26. I worked with them when they were on our side.

They are hard-core.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Goodwill gone.

Reckless Soldiers, Slappers and Smack

By Yvonne Ridley in Afghanistan

SNIP

As I walked across the border at Torkham towards the Afghan passport control office I heard someone barking in a loud, aggressive American accent at one of the drivers held up at the US-controlled checkpoint.

I looked up and watched as a heavily armoured, helmeted soldier pointed his gun and continued screaming in a rude manner for the driver to get in line.

It obviously did not occur to him that most of the people in earshot could only understand Pashto.

I really despaired and felt sorry for those Afghans who were being greeted by this obnoxious alien in uniform as they entered their own country.

Now I know most Americans don’t do humility, but a little sensitivity should have been called for on that day … it was the day after nearly 90 wedding guests had been wiped out in yet another US airstrike.

I have now spent several days in Afghanistan as an unembedded journalist, travelling around freely without an armed or military escort.

Yes, it’s risky and at times nerve-wracking but if I want to find out what is really happening on the ground I’m not going to get it hiding in some hotel compound or army barracks being briefed by an army spokesman who knows even less than me.

So far I’ve spoken to men and women from all backgrounds, cultures and Islamic ideologies and without exception they’re hacked off with the American presence.

All the goodwill I saw after the fall of the Taliban has been squandered by the military presence of the US as well as the British (no one really distinguishes between the two) and it is crystal clear they have overstayed their welcome.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21183.htm

[cambie]

25. Now that Iran

Pakistan and India have agreed on building their own pipeline, bringing prosperity and stability to the whole region, the Brits might be wondering if they will ever even get a pipeline contract for all their losses. Might have to to bomb and destabilise Pakistan now..