Why Washington Wants Afghanistan

PUBBLICHIAMO QUESTA INTERESSANTISSIMA ANALISI, CHE CI VIENE DAL NORD-AMERICA, di Jared ISRAEL, ROZOFF E VARKEVISSER ED che APPARE OGGI. (18-9-01)NEL SITO http://www.emperors-clothes.com

DA UNA PRIMA SCORSA SI AFFERRA PIENAMENTE IL VALORE STRATEGICO DELLA MOSSA AFGANA CHE STANNO COMPIENDO GLI STATI UNITI. UN ALTRO PASSO SULLA VIA DELLA GUERRA ALLA CINA. DOPO AVER COLPITO A NORD CON LA DISGREGAZIONE DEI BALCANI E LA CONQUISTA DELLA JUGOSLAVIA, ADESSO LA GUERRA, L'AZIONE IMPERIALISTA O GLOBALE CHE DIR SI VOGLIA COLPISCE A SUD, AL CENTRO GEOSTRATEGICO DEL MONDO, DOVE PER DISGREGARE L'AVVERSARIO AVEVA MANDATO IN AVANGUARDIA LE SUE CREATURE I FONDAMENTALISTI, PRIMA IN IRAN E POI IN AFGANISTAN.

SPINTA DAL PROGREDIRE DELLA GRANDE CRISI GENERALE DI SOVRAPRODUZIONE DI CAPITALE L'AZIONE GLOBALE IMPERIALISTA ACCENTUA IL PROCESSO DI GUERRA, SALE DAI DESERTI ARABI ALLE MONTAGNE DELL'INDOEUROPA E PUNTA A QUEL PERNO STRATEGICO DEL MONDO CHE E' L'AFGANISTAN DA DOVE POTRA' CONTROLLARE MEGLIO ENTRAMBI I BACINI PETROLIFERI. lASCIA COMUNQUE AL NORD APERTI I DIVERSI FOCOLAI TRA CUI QUELLO CECENO.

PER AVERE IL CONSENSO A QUESTO PASSO DI GUERRA DECISIVO BUSH E LA NATO SFRUTTANO FINO IN FONDO L'ATTACCO ALLE TORRI GEMELLE.  ( FRA PARENTESI :E ANCHE QUESTO MASSACRO, POSSIAMO STAR SICURI NON VERRA' MAI CHIARITO, COME KENNEDY, PIAZZA FONTANA, LA STAZIONE DI BOLOGNA...)

SE C'E' QUALCUNO CHE HA TEMPO DI TRADURRE LO FACCIA...BISOGNA PORTARE AVANTI ASSIEME OBIETTIVI PRATICI E APPROFONDIMENTO...) in questo sito ci sono altri articoli molto importanti

Subject: Why Washington Wants Afghanistan (revised)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:34:54 EDT
From: JaredI@aol.com
To: JaredI@aol.com

URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm

To join Emperor's Clothes email list, please go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/feedback.htm. Receive about one article/day.

www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

=======================================
Why Washington Wants Afghanistan (revised)
by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser [posted 18 September 2001]
=======================================

"Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if
this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means there is a long,
long war ahead." (Thomas Friedman, 'New York Times,' September 13, 2001)
Key U.S. government representatives and media figures have used the
bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon to create an international
state of fear.

This has swept Washington's closest allies (notably Germany and England,
though not Italy) into agreeing carte blanche to participate in U.S.
reprisals.

It has also served to obscure a most important question: does Washington
have a hidden agenda here, a strategy other than hurling bombs? If so, what
is it, and what does it mean for the world?

***

Amid the increasingly implausible and frequently contradictory
explanations (2) offered by U.S. government officials for their inability or
unwillingness to intervene effectively before and during this past Tuesday's aerial
attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. - and as the cries for war drown out
the voices of reason - a deadly scenario is unfolding.

Columns in major mainstream newspapers have borne such titles as:

"World War III" ('New York Times,' 9/13)
"Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia Inquirer,' 9/13)
"Time To Use The Nuclear Option" ('Washington Times,' 9/14).
A government that claims it had no knowledge of or was at a loss knowing
how to deal with painstakingly organized terrorist attacks now calls for
"exterminating" previously unseen assailants by, in the words of Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, "ending states who sponsor
terrorism,"

Henry Kissinger argues ('Los Angeles Times,' 9/14) that alleged
terrorist networks must be uprooted wherever they exist. Former Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu writes an article entitled "Dismantle Terrorist Supporting
Regimes" ('Jerusalem Post,' 9/14). And to raise the level of international
intimidation a notch, we have R.W. Apple, Jr. in the 'Washington Post'
(9/14):

"In this new kind [of] war...there are no neutral states or geographical
confines. Us or them. You are either with us or against us."

Initially, a mix of countries was threatened as so-called 'states
supporting terrorism,' who are not with us and therefore must be against us: Cuba,
Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Although differing in most
respects, especially political ideology, they are indeed alike in three
ways: They all bear decades of U.S. government hostility; they all have
secular governments; they all have no connection to Osama bin Laden.

In, "Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia Inquirer') David Perlmutter warns
that if these states do not do Washington's bidding, they must:

"Prepare for the systematic destruction of every power plant, every oil
refinery, every pipeline, every military base, every government office
in the entire country...the complete collapse of their economy and government
for a generation."

Meanwhile, the countries which collaborated to create the Taliban,
training and financing the forces of Osama bin Laden, and which have never
stopped pouring money into the Taliban - namely Pakistan, close U.S. allies
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the United States itself - have
not been placed on the "we've got to get them" list. Instead these states
are touted as core allies in the New World War against terrorism.

Raising the pitch, yesterday:

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US would engage in a
'multi-headed effort' to target terrorist organizations and up to 60
countries believed to be supporting them.

"The US, Mr. Rumsfeld told American TV, "had no choice" other than to
pursue terrorists and countries giving them refuge."

The threats to bomb up to a third of the world's countries has scared
many people, worldwide. This, we think, is the intention. It serves two
functions.

First, it means that if Washington limits its aggressive action mainly
to attacking Afghanistan, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

And we think Washington will mainly attack Afghanistan - at first. Other
immediate violations of sovereignty, such as the forced use of Pakistan,
will be backup action to support the attack on Afghanistan. There may also be
some state terror, such as increased, unprovoked bombing of Iraq, as a
diversion. But the main immediate focus will, we think, be Afghanistan.

Second, this scare tactic is meant to divert attention from Washington's
real strategy, far more dangerous than the threat to bomb many states.
Washington wants to take over Afghanistan in order to speed up the fulfillment of
its strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet Republics in the same way
Washington has been pulverizing the former Yugoslavia. This poses the
gravest risks to mankind.

WHAT DOES WASHINGTON WANT WITH IMPOVERISHED AFGHANISTAN?

To answer this question, look at any map of Europe and Asia. Consider
the immense spread of the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia.

European Russia is 1,747,112 square miles. That's between a third and
half the landmass of all Europe. Add the Asian part of Russia and you get
6,592,800 sq. mi. That's equal to most of the US and China combined.
More than half of Africa.

Russia borders Finland in the far West. It borders Turkey and the
Balkans in the south. It extends to the edge of Asia in the Far East. It is the
rooftop of Mongolia and China.

Not only is Russia spectacularly large, with incalculable wealth, mostly
untapped, but it is the only world-class nuclear power besides the U.S.
Contrary to popular opinion, Russia's military might has not been
destroyed; indeed, it is arguably stronger, in relation to the US, than during the
early period of the Cold War. It has the most sophisticated submarine
technology in the world.

If the U.S. can break-up Russia and the other former Soviet Republics
into weak territories, dominated by NATO, Washington would have a free hand
to exploit Russia's great wealth and do whatever it wanted elsewhere
without fear of Russian power.

Despite talk of Russia and the U.S. working together, and despite the
great harm that has been done to Russia by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), this remains the thrust of US policy. (3)

Afghanistan is strategically placed, not only bordering Iran, India, and
even, for a small stretch, China (!) but, most important, sharing
borders and a common religion with the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet
Union (SU): Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These in turn border
Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.

Central Asia is strategic not only for its vast deposits of oil, as we
are often told, but more important for its strategic position. Were
Washington to take control of these Republics, NATO would have military bases in the
following key areas: the Baltic region; the Balkans and Turkey; and
these Republics. This would constitute a noose around Russia's neck.

Add to that Washington's effective domination of the former Soviet
Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the south, and the US would be positioned
to launch externally instigated 'rebellions' all over Russia.

NATO, whose current doctrine allows it to intervene in states bordering
NATO members, could then initiate "low intensity wars" including the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, also officially endorsed by current NATO
doctrine, in 'response' to myriad 'human rights abuses.'

It is ironic that Washington claims it must return to Afghanistan to
fight Islamist terrorism, because it was precisely in its effort to destroy
Russian power that Washington first created the Islamist terrorist apparatus in
Afghanistan, during the '80s.

This was not, as some say, a matter of aiding rebels against Russian
expansionism. Whatever one thinks about the Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan, it was in fact conceived as a defensive action to preserve,
not alter, the world balance of power. It was the United States which took
covert action to 'encourage' Russian intervention, with the goal of turning the
conservative rural Afghan tribesmen into a force to drain the Soviet
Union.

This is admitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the key National Security chief
at the time.

Consider the following excerpts from two newspaper reports.

First, from the 'N.Y. Times':

"The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the
United States and Saudi Arabia with nearly $6 billion worth of weapons. And the
territory targeted last week [this was published after the August, 1998
U.S. missile attack on Afghanistan], a set of six encampments around Khost,
where the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden has financed a kind of 'terrorist
university,' in the words of a senior United States intelligence
official, is well known to the Central Intelligence Agency.

"... some of the same warriors who fought the Soviets with the C.I.A.'s
help are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden's banner.... ('NY Times,' 24 August
1998 pages A1 & A7 )

And this from the London 'Independent':

"The Afghan Civil War was under way, and America was in it from the
start - or even before the start, if [former National Security Adviser, and
currently top foreign policy strategist Zbigniew] Brzezinski himself is to be
believed.

'"We didn't push the Russians to intervene,' he told an interviewer in
1998, 'but we consciously increased the probability that they would do so.
This secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect was to draw the
Russians into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret that?' [said Brzezinski]

"The long-term effect of the American intervention from cold-warrior
Brzezinski's perspective was 10 years later to bring the Soviet Union to
its knees. But there were other effects, too.

"To keep the war going, the CIA, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan's military intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence
Directorate), funneled millions and millions of dollars to the Mujahedeen. It was the
remotest and the safest form of warfare: the US (and Saudi Arabia)
provided funds, and America also a very limited amount of training. They also
provided the Stinger missiles that ultimately changed the face of the war.

"Pakistan's ISI did everything else: training, equipping, motivating,
and advising. And they did the job with panache: Pakistan's military ruler
at the time, General Zia ul Haq, who himself held strong fundamentalist
leanings, threw himself into the task with a passion." ('The Independent' (London)
17
September 2001. Our emphasis.)

Right up to the present, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has been perhaps the key
force in financing the Taliban. But the U.S. itself has provided direct
support despite the Taliban's monstrous record of humanitarian abuse:

"The Bush administration has not been deterred. Last week it pledged
another $ 43 million in assistance to Afghanistan, raising total aid this year
to $ 124 million and making the United States the largest humanitarian donor
to the country." ('The Washington Post,' 25 May 2001)

Why have the US and its allies continued - up to now - to fund the
Taliban? And why nevertheless is the US now moving to attack its monstrous
creation?

It is our conviction, and that of many observers from the region in
question, that Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fund the Taliban so
the Taliban could do a job: consolidate control over Afghanistan and from
there move to destabilize the former Soviet Central Asian Republics on its
borders.

But the Taliban has failed. It has not defeated the Russian-backed
Northern Alliance. Instead of subverting Central Asia in businesslike fashion, it
has indulged in blowing up statues of Buddha and terrorizing people who
deviate from the Taliban's super-repressive interpretation of Islam.

At the same time, Russia has also been moving in the 'wrong' direction,
from Washington's perspective. The completely controllable Yeltsin has been
replaced with President Putin, who partially resists the U.S. - for
example, putting down the CIA-backed takeover of Chechnya by Islamist terrorists
linked to Afghanistan. Further, China and Russia have signed a mutual
defense pact. And despite immense European/U.S. pressure, Russian President
Putin refused to condemn Belarussian President Lukashenko who, like the jailed
but unbroken Yugoslav President Milosevic, calls for standing up to NATO.
(3a)

It is this unfavorable series of developments that has caused Washington
to increase its reliance on its all-time favorite tactic: extreme
brinkmanship.

An early sign of this brinkmanship appeared two weeks ago, just before
the Presidential elections in the former Soviet Republic of Belarus. Belarus
is in the Baltic region near Lithuania and Poland. Washington and the
European Union loathe Lukashenko because he has refused to turn his small country
over to the International Monetary Fund and dismantle all the social
guarantees of the Soviet era. Moreover he called for defending Yugoslavia. He even
wants Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to reunite. This desire to have former
Soviet Republics get back together puts him square in the path of Washington's
policy, which is to break these Republics up into even smaller pieces.

For months, Washington and the Europeans have been meddling in the
Belarussian elections. Washington admits to funding some 300
'Non-Governmental Organizations' in Belarus. This in a country of some
10 million souls.

As if this wasn't sufficient, just before the elections, U.S. Ambassador
to Belarus Michael Kozak issued a truly startling statement:

"[Ambassador Kozak wrote to a British newspaper that] America's
'objective and to some degree methodology are the same' in Belarus as in Nicaragua,
where the US backed the Contras against the left-wing Sandinista
Government in a war that claimed at least 30,000 lives." ("The Times" (UK), 3
September 2001.) (4)

As you may recall, the Contras was a terrorist outfit that Washington
financed during the 1980s to destroy the Left-wing Nationalist
Sandinista government in Nicaragua. the Contras specialized in raiding farming
villages where they slaughtered the inhabitants; that when they were not
smuggling drugs. This all came out during the Iran-Contra scandal.

Now Washington has cynically used the mass slaughter at the World Trade
Center and the lesser attack on the Pentagon to rally its NATO forces,
invoking Article Five of NATO's charter, under which all members of NATO
must respond to an attack on any one. This has the goal of a) putting
together a "peacekeeping force" for Afghanistan b) launching air and possibly
ground attacks c) eliminating the obstinate and incompetent leadership of the
Taliban and d) taking direct control through the creation of a
U.S.-dominated NATO military occupation.

Some argue that NATO would be crazy to try to pacify Afghanistan. They
say the British failed to do it in the 1800's, and the Russians failed in
the 1980's.

But Washington does not need or intend to pacify Afghanistan. It needs a
military presence sufficient to organize and direct indigenous forces to
penetrate the Central Asian republics and instigate armed conflict.

Rather than trying to defeat the Taliban, Washington will make the
Taliban an offer they cannot refuse: work with the U.S.; get plenty of money and
guns plus a free hand to direct the drug trade, just as the U.S. has
permitted the KLA to make a fortune from drugs in the Balkans. (5)

Or oppose the U.S., and die.

In this way, Washington hopes to duplicate what it did in Kosovo where
NATO took drug-dealing gangsters and violently anti-Serbian secessionists and
out of that raw material fashioned the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army.

In this case the raw material would mainly be members of the Taliban.
Reorganized and under strict direction, reborn as Liberation Fighters,
they would be directed against the Central Asian Republics of the former
Soviet Union. This would duplicate what NATO has done in the Balkans. There it
has sent the KLA, beefed up by Islamist reinforcements and 'advised' by U.S.
specialists, against neighboring Macedonia.

As the Central Asian Republics battle the intruders, NATO could offer
them military assistance, thus penetrating the region on both sides by means
of a conflict instigated by Washington. This tactic of simultaneously
attacking and defending Central Asia - has been employed to great effect against
Macedonia. The goal is to produce decimated, NATO-dominated territories.
No more Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. (6) Then on to Kazakhstan,
and then Russia.

This strategy cannot be sold to the American people. We repeat: it
cannot be sold.

It is for that reason that the Bush administration is using the tragic
nightmare of murder in New York, which itself occurred under
circumstances suggesting the complicity of Washington's covert forces, to create
international hysteria sufficient to drag NATO into the strategic
occupation of Afghanistan and an intensified assault on the former Soviet Union.
(7)

Before anyone sighs with relief, thinking, "Thank God this is all that's
happening," consider that apart form the violation of national
sovereignty and many other very negative aspects of Washington's plans, the attack
on Afghanistan brings NATO to Russia's Central Asian doorstep. This is a
strategic escalation of conflict, moving us all much closer - nobody
knows how much closer and nobody knows how fast things will escalate - to
worldwide nuclear war.

Will Washington get away with it? Washington, and the giant capitalists
who control it, obviously think Russia will let itself be destroyed. But
then, as the Greeks say, "Pride is followed by self-destruction."

The Russians are very deceptive. They try to avoid a fight. But as Mr.
Hitler discovered, when they are pushed to the wall, they fight with the
ferocity of lions. And they have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

Thus Washington is playing with the possibility of a war which would
make the horror that occurred last Tuesday at the World Trade Center, or even the
much larger-scale horror of the U.S. terror-bombing of Yugoslavia, look like
previews of hell. (8)

- Emperor's Clothes

***

Further Reading:

1) Like a man with a guilty conscience, the U.S. government and its NATO
allies constantly denounce terror while routinely employing it in
international affairs. See for example:


'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND COLOMBIAN 'DEATH SQUADS' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm


'WHAT NATO OCCUPATION WOULD MEAN FOR MACEDONIANS'
First-hand report of the state of terror instituted when NATO took over
Kosovo. Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/savethe-a.htm

''Five Years On & the Lies Continue.' Discussion of the use by the
U.S.-sponsored Islamist regime in Sarajevo of systematic terror against
Serbian villagers in Bosnia. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/texts.htm

 'Meet Mr. Massacre' - Concerning U.S. Balkans envoy William Walker's
death
squad activities in Latin American. Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm

2) 'Criminal Negligence or Treason' Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm

3) 'Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and Trying to Force Milosevic to
Surrender?' by Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/whyisn.htm

3A) 'What The Hague Tribunal [sic!] Wouldn't Let Milosevic Say' This is
the
statement which Milosevic tried to give. To prevent it 'Judge' May cut
off
his mike. It can be read at http://www.icdsm.org/more/aug30.htm

4) 'Tough Measures Justified in Belarus' by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/tough.htm

5) 'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND COLOMBIAN DEATH SQUADS' by
Jared
Israel. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm#a

6) 'SORRY VIRGINIA BUT THEY ARE NATO TROOPS, NOT 'REBELS' Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm

7) - Click here please.

8) 'Yugoslav Auto Workers Appealed to NATO's Humanity...' Can be read at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/car.htm

9) Rick Rozoff takes a critical look at Washington's response to
Tuesday's
tragedies in 'Bush's Press Conference: Into the Abyss' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/rozoff/abyss.htm

10) While Washington points to Osama bin Laden as "suspect # 1" in
yesterday's horrific violence, the truth is not being told to the
American
people: 'Washington Created Osama bin Laden' by Jared Israel can be read
at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html#w

11) If one looks carefully, one can find in the Western media evidence
that bin Laden has been involved - on the U.S.-backed side - in Kosovo,
Bosnia and now Macedonia. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm


12) Bin Laden was propelled into power as part of the U.S. drive to
create an Islamist terrorist movement to crush the former Soviet Union. See, the
truly amazing account from the 'Washington Post,' 'Washington's Backing of
Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy.' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm

13) Head of Russian Navy says official scenario couldn't have happened.
See 'Russian Navy Chief Says Official 9-11 Story Impossible' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/navy.htm

14) Emperor's Clothes has interviewed Rudi Dekkers from the Huffman
Aviation facility, at which two of the hijack suspects were students a year ago.
Though Mr. Dekkers' told the interviewer he had received many calls, the
media has not published his comments. The interview was taped and the
text on Emperor's Clothes is a verbatim transcript, including the grammatical
errors common in daily speech. See "Interview With Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt
on Official Story" at http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/dekkers.htm

URGENT APPEAL!

TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONATED TO OUR FUNDRAISING DRIVE - THANK YOU!

BUT EMPEROR'S CLOTHES STILL NEEDS HELP!

The George Soros foundation does not fund Emperor's Clothes. Our only
source of money is people like you. All contributions help, big and small.
Right now, we're in serious need of financial help from our friends.

If everyone who cares about Emperor's Clothes chips in, we'll be out of
trouble in no time.

Any help you can send will be greatly appreciated! $20, $50, $100 or
$1000 -it will all help.

You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation over the phone. Call us at (U.S.) 617 916-1705 any
time and we will take your credit card information over the phone.

Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us
know by email at emperors1000@aol.com, just to make sure we get it. Thanks!

Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!

www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net