U.S. negotiating to keep 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014

Reports in U.S media indicate that Obama intends to keep around 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the supposed withdrawal date at the end of 2014.

A report in the Wall Street Journal cites anonymous U.S. officials who claim that the U.S. is negotiating with the Afghan government to keep about 10,000 troops in the country even after the scheduled withdrawal date of 2014. This was widely expected, as the general principle was embodied in the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed on May 2, 2012 between the U.S. and Afghanistan. The officials said that the numbers were in accord with recommendations of the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan General John Allen.

Obama's choice as successor to Allen, General Joe Dunford, has strongly supported keeping the occupation going after 2014:

“To accomplish this objective. ..the primary missions of the US military in Afghanistan should be to (1) train, advise, and assist the ANSF; (2) provide support to civilian agencies, and (3) conduct counter-terrorism operations. This mission set will include force protection for our brave young men and women and, as available, the provision of in extremis support for our Afghan forces.”

Last month, the NATO command, in a report, found that Taliban attacks have actually increased since the beginning of the surge of U.S troops into Afghanistan. The Kabul government remains weak and very corrupt. The U.S.-backed and trained security forces are mostly unable to operate on their own, and in some cases have been infiltrated by insurgents resulting in attacks against their trainers.

The Obama plan seems to be to try and shore up a failed enterprise while suggesting that the war is over, The war, officially, may be over but the U.S., and other NATO allies no doubt, will continue to throw good money after bad in long term military investments in Afghanistan

Official reports will probably continue to be relatively rosy. As Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davies said last year::

“Our current military leadership is so distorting the information it releases that the deterioration of the situation and the failing nature of our efforts is shielded from the American public (and Congress), and replaced instead with explicit statements that all is going according to plan.”

No doubt these distortions will continue in Obama's new term in office.

Afghan soldiers kills two U.S. troops

In another "green on blue" attack an Afghan National Army soldier shot dead two U.S. troops in Laghman province. U.S. troops returned fire killing the Afghan.

Afghan officials said that the incident was an accident. They claim the soldier had tripped over his weapon which discharged killing the two U.S. soldiers. However, U.S. officials claimed that it was not an accident but the result of a dispute.

This is the 33rd "green on blue" attack in 2012. Altogether 42 NATO troops have been killed in the incidents. The Pentagon is trying to put a new spin on the attacks by rebranding them as "insider attacks" suggesting they might be Taliban infiltrators or Taliban using Afghan uniforms.

While no doubt those sorts of cases do exist in this instance there is no evidence that the Afghan was an infiltrator.The shooting was apparently the result of some dispute the nature of which has yet to be clarified. Insider attacks have nearly doubled in 2012 from 2011. Already this year 37 Americans have been killed compared with 28 during the same period last year. In a news conference Defense Secretary Panetta said:

"Make no mistake about it, I've been very concerned about these incidents ... because of the lives lost and because of the potential damage to our partnership efforts,"

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, defended the use of the term "insider attack" calling the "green-on-blue" designation a misnomer. Panetta claimed that the attacks show that the Taliban are becoming desperate. He said:

"The reality is, the Taliban has not been able to regain any territory lost, and so they're resorting to these kinds of attacks to create havoc,"

Panetta is obviously putting a quite positive spin on these attacks. This is a common tactic. Whenever there is some dramatic Taliban attack it is often interpreted as a sign of desperation. For the safety of NATO troops Panetta had better hope that the Taliban do not become even more desperate! Panetta also reminded Americans that the U.S. was still at war in Afghanistan:

"There are a lot of other things going on in this country (the United States) that can draw our attention, from the Olympics to political campaigns to droughts to some of the tragedies we've seen in communities around the country... But I thought it was important to remind the American people ... that young men and women are dying in order to try to protect this country."

Certainly the Afghan war does not surface as much of an issue in the U.S. election campaign. Panetta does not mention that there is an agreement with Afghanistan that will continue the U.S. presence in Afghanistan from 2014 to 2024 in spite of the turnover of security to the Afghans in 2014.

Drone Strikes: Government lawyers hold that even existence or non-existence of strikes should not be revealed

The U.S.government which itself has now admitted, defended, and praised the drone program has asked a federal court to reject ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) demands that the government release information on drone attacks. U.S. government lawyers filed a brief that says in part:“Whether or not the CIA has the authority to be, or is in fact, directly involved in targeted lethal operations remains classified"

Logically it would seem that to refuse either to affirm or deny the existence of the program is ludicrous given that there is a constant flow of information about the attacks. The situation is so ludicrous that even the ludicrous main stream press has on the whole given up on reporting suspected U.S. drone strikes by simply describing them as U.S. or CIA drone strikes. But being illogical has a rational purpose and that is to keep information about the drone strikes from the populace while leaking out any information that might be found politically positive. Much of the leaked information may be misinformation as well since the populace cannot gain access to genuine information since it is classified.

The ACLU together with the New York Times has requested documents that explain the legal basis for the raids and killing of U.S. citizens. The U.S. government wants a summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuits. The government brief warns:“Even to describe the numbers and details of most of these documents would reveal information that could damage the government’s counter terrorism efforts,” The ACLU's Jamee Jafeer countered:“Senior officials have discussed it, both on the record and off. They have taken credit for its putative successes, professed it to be legal and dismissed concerns about civilian casualties,”

While the government brief said that it realized that there was public concern about the details it had to take into consideration the need to keep information classified. If there is so much concern about releasing classified information about the program why are top officials such as Obama, Brennan, and Panetta constantly releasing information?

The UN has also been asking the same sorts of questions as the ACLU and has even suggested that some attacks may involve war crimes. However, the Obama administration has been accountable in the only way it knows how by selectively setting out purported data about the strikes that is meant to serve their own interest. For more see this article.

CIA and U.S. government still neither affirm or deny existence of drone program

Even though everyone knows that there are drone attacks by the CIA in Pakistan and Yemen among other locations targeting suspected terrorists the official position of the CIA is that they neither confirm or deny it. Obama has bragged about killing terrorist leaders in Pakistan and Yemen. Panetta has defended the program and called it successful. Yet the official CIA line does not even admit the program exists.

Given that everyone knows the program exists and the president and national defense chief have specifically talked about the program it seems a bit asinine to deny that it exists. However the CIA position has a purpose and that is to keep any details hidden from the public while U.S. officials reveal whatever aspects of the program they think will be politically advantageous to them.

The ACLU has been for some time trying to obtain information on the drone program through the Freedom of Information Act. There will be a hearing on the matter on Sept. 20. Twenty six members of the U.S. Congress have asked Obama to consider the consequences of the program and explain its necessity. However, the ACLU has been trying to get information from 2010. The ACLU asked to see the legal basis for the attacks, restrictions on those targeted, civilian casualties, geographic limits to attacks, and the number of attacks carried out and other features of the program.

A federal judge sided with the CIA ruling that to confirm or deny the existence of the program and records would expose national security secrets. So there you have it. Even to admit the existence of the program would expose national security secrets. However Obama can reveal anything about the program that he finds useful politically and Leon Panetta can do likewise. This is what is known as accountability. For more see this article.

Panetta claims route closures through Pakistan costs U.S. 100 million per month

While strictly speaking this may be true the U.S. has not paid Pakistan for cost associated with its own efforts in the tribal areas since 2010. The amount is estimated by Pakistan at over 3 billion U.S. and even by the U.S. as over a billion. The U.S. has also cut other aid. These sums owing are used as leverage to force Pakistan to reopen the routes.

Panetta was speaking before a Senate Appropriations panel. The panel was discussing whether to cut even more aid to Pakistan. While Panetta urged the group not to cut the aid fully he said that conditions should be put on the 3.5 billion aid that is supposed to go to Pakistan this year.

The Pakistan government has demanded an apology for an attack on the border that killed 24 Pakistani troops and the cessation of drone attacks as a condition for reopening borders. The U.S. has said it will do neither.

U.S. officials urge Pakistan to simply reopen the routes without conditions. However, at the very least the Pakistanis are demanding a considerable increase in fees and no doubt the release of aid money. However Pakistan in all probability will settle for money and forget about the drone attack and apology conditions. See for example this article. The Pakistani foreign minister Hina Khar rejected the complaint by the U.S about price gouging. However there was no mention of the specific conditions supposedly required for reopening the routes that is the apology and the cessation of drone attacks. For more see this article.

CIA given go ahead to increase drone attacks in Pakistan

In response to Pakistani demands that drone attacks cease and in spite of the fact that Pakistan has made stopping them a condition of reopening supply routes, Obama has obviously given the go ahead not just to resume attacks to increase their frequency.The move is just one aspect of what is becoming more and more open criticism and impatience with Pakistan. The U.S. has not made any attempt to meet another demand of Pakistan an apology for the killing of 24 Pakistani troops in an incident on the border with Afghanistan last November. This was the original event that caused Pakistan to close the transit routes.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke of the U.S. reaching the limits of its patience. Perhaps Pakistan is also already at the point where it has reached the limits of its patience and has no intention of reopening the supply routes. The Pakistanis have their own priorities and plans. No doubt some of the contingency plans involve insurgent linked groups. This is hardly a novel tactic. The U.S. used the same tactics in supporting Islamic radicals against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

But Pakistan is supposed to immediately act upon whatever the U.S. considers its own interests in spite of the fact that Pakistan has already suffered many losses through fighting terrorism and also subjected the tribal areas to terrible devastation and the displacement of thousands of people.

Panetta made it clear that drone strikes will continue. Panetta said:"It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan," If the drone strikes are so successful how can there be safe havens in Pakistan?

The pace of attacks in increasing. Since the Chicago conference alone on May 20 21 there have been eight attacks. In the 5 and a half months before the conference the CIA logged only 14 strikes in Pakistan.

Javed Qazi a retired Pakistani intelligence head said:"They are trying to send a message: 'If you don't come around, we will continue with our plan, the way we want to do it,'" He continued this is "superpower arrogance being shown to a smaller state.... But this will only increase the feeling among Pakistanis that the Americans are bent on having their way through force and not negotiation."

Panetta levelled charges against Pakistan while speaking in India. To do this shows absolute arrogance and is apt to make Pakistan even more paranoid about developing close U.S. India ties. That Pakistan now seeks closer ties with China and better relations even with Iran should hardly come as a surprise. Panetta confirmed that the U.S. is not just targeting the remnants of Al Qaeda but any group it thinks may be attacking the U.S. in Afghanistan.

The Zardari government will soon face elections. Apparently the U.S. does not care that the result may be the defeat of the Zardari government and the election of a far more anti-American government. For more see this article.

U.S. withdraw negotiating team working on deal to reopen NATO supply routes

Since a fatal border air attack by NATO last November which killed 24 Pakistani troops Pakistan has closed down NATO supply routes to Afghanistan. As a condition of opening the routes again the Pakistanis have asked for an apology and cessation of drone attacks. The U.S. has responded by stepping up the number of drone attacks. They have not apologized.

The Pakistani government strongly objected to the drone attacks.The U.S. through defense minister Panetta said that the U.S. was losing patience with Pakistan for harboring terrorists. All of this no doubt has made it virtually impossible in political terms to reach a deal with the U.S. Apparently the U.S. does not care.

Pentagon spokesperson George Little said:"The decision was reached to bring the team home for a short period of time," The negotiating team had been in Pakistan for six weeks and thought that they were close to a deal. U.S. actions have no doubt sabotaged that for now. There has not even been a date set for resumption of negotiations.

  Althoughthere is an alternative land route through central Asian republics the cost is very much greater than the Pakistan route. For more see this article.

UN human right head questions legality of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan

At the end of a fact finding visit to Pakistan Navi Pillay raised serious questions about their legality under international law. U.S. officials constantly praise the program and parade names of Al Qaeda leaders killed in the raids.

When human rights agencies try to seek information on the strikes the fact that they even exist becomes classified information but when there is propaganda value to be gained by releasing information there are names of leaders killed and the numbers of suspected militants eliminated.

The general mantra justifying the attacks is present by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as defending the U.S. However the notion of self defense in this case is surely a stretch as there may be no immediate threat.

Pakistan summoned the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan to complain of the attacks. Pakistan complains the attacks violate its sovereignty. The parliament has demanded the attacks cease. However at the same time it would seem that Pakistani intelligence may help out with targeting. Recently the U.S. has stepped up attacks even in the face of the Pakistani demand that the drone attacks cease as a condition of reopening NATO supply routes. By deliberately snubbing their noses at the Pakistani demands the U.S. makes it politically difficult for the Pakistani government to compromise.

Pillay was concerned about several aspects of the attacks. Pillay noted:"Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law, in particular the principle of distinction and proportionality," She continues:"Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command" Pillay argues that the attacks carried out by the CIA are"beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control". Of course somehow or other the New York times is able to get a lot of background information which shows that a committee assess who is to be on the kill list and the President of the U.S. makes the final decision. These are all the marvelous accountability provisions. Of course one knows only what is revealed by the New York Times from material fed to them by the U.S. administration. Pillay will no doubt rile the U.S.since she suggested that Pakistan should ask the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions to investigate some of the incidents. Many critics claim that significant numbers of innocent people are killed in the strikes. For more see this article.

U.S. builds new military base in Chile

The U.S. global empire of military bases has been a continuing aspect of U.S. hegemony since World War II. See this site.

"Global military bases have been a constant in U.S. foreign policy since World War II. Currently, there are over seven hundred of them worldwide, serving as home for over 2,500,000 military personnel [3]. On top of America’s permanent base structure, the U.S. Navy’s eleven aircraft carriers can also be taken as impromptu military bases insofar that they can be rapidly deployed to project American military power anywhere in the world [2]."

As the debt crisis puts some pressure on the military and global needs are re-evaluated some bases are trimmed back or closed and new ones opened. Recently smaller FOLs(Forward Operating Locations) are being increasingly used because they are small and less visible in a country and less expensive.. This is the pattern now in Panama and some areas of Africa. However in South America the U.S. has been expanding bases.

Already Obama has a new military base in northern Argentina. Supposedly the base is to provide joint emergency services and troops to be deployed for humanitarian relief. Naturally many are sceptical and think the base is simply to project U.S. power in the region. Now across the border in Chile there is another new base being set up.

This new base is in the port city of Concon..The U.S. maintains the base will be used to train forces in peace keeping operations. The Chilean left fears the troops will be trained to control and repress local populations. The U.S. was a strong supporter of General Pinochet's overthrow of the elected leftist president Salvador Allende.

Human rights groups point out that the design of the base involves a simulation of an urban zone with sidewalks and roads and buildings. This suggests some sort of training in an urban context such as control of crowds etc. The base is run by the U.S. Southern Command which is actually headquartered in Sam Houston Texas.

Ecuador has turfed out U.S. troops from a key base in Manta Ecuador. While the based injected millions into the local economy it also caused problems for locals. While prostitution flourished the local fishermen were banned from many fishing waters for security reasons. U.S. marines intercepted Ecuadorean boats even sinking them on occasion.

. Washington recently sent Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Chile to calm concerns over the increased U.S. military presence. However, Jose Goni Chilean Minister of Defense is a big promoter of further U.S. Chilean military ties. He has even visited the U.S. and the former School of the Americas which trained many South American military. For much more see this article.

Leon Panetta sees over half of U.S. fleet in Asia Pacific by 2020

Speaking at a security conference in Singapore U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta indicated that by 2020 60 per cent of the U.S. fleet would be in the Asia Pacific region. No doubt China will take note and up its military spending.

Panetta said::"Make no mistake, in a steady, deliberate and sustainable way, the United States military is rebalancing and is bringing an enhanced capability development to this vital region," Panetta also said that U.S. budget problems and cutbacks would not interfere with these changes. It seems that social programs and the social safety net are entitlements that can be scrapped but not the U.S. global military presence. Panetta claims there is money in the Pentagon five year budget plan to achieve his goals.

There are areas of dispute in the South China Sea with competing claims by Taiwan,, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines all having completing claims. There is thought to be oil in some of the disputed areas but there are also clashes over fishing rights.

Panetta downplayed the obvious, that the U.S. wants to limit Chinese influence in the area. Panetta said he is looking forward to visiting China later. He even saw the two countries increasing military ties and cooperation on anti-drug policies and aid.Panetta even claimed that the increased U.S,. presence will benefit China and improve regional security. During his trip Panetta is scheduled to stop also in Vietnam and India. For more see this article.

U.S. Defense Secretary promises U.S. enduring presence in Afghanistan after 2014.

Many U.S. officials and the Obama presidential campaign stress the pullout from Afghanistan and turning over security to the Afghans in 2014. However, Panetta in a recent interview on ABC pointed out the rest of the story.

Karzai and Obama signed an agreement that will see the U.S. stay in Afghanistan until 2024. Panetta said:“Well, the most important point is that we’re not going anyplace. We’re gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan,”

There are two narratives. The Obama campaign narrative stresses the pullout and is addressed to those who oppose the Afghan war and want Americans home.On the other hand there is the hawk narrative peddled by Panetta that stresses the enduring presence with troops staying until 2024.

The hawk narrative can be flown when Romney attacks Obama for setting a withdrawal date. The actual number of troops to remain and issues such as immunity for U.S. troops from Afghan law apparently are not settled. Off course the partnership agreement that was signed was never passed by the Afghan parliament nor debated by the U.S. congress. For more see this article.

Leon Panetta: U.S. can deal with spreading militancy in Yemen without boots on the ground.

Everything the U.S. is involved in within Yemen is always described as related to Al Qaeda. While some conflict involves other militant groups they are described as Al Qaeda linked or Al Qaeda affiliated as soon as they come into conflict with the Hadi government. As soon as they are attacked by U.S. drones they do become very much of the same disposition as Al Qaeda even though before their concern was local. The result is that Al Qaeda is said to be spreading throughout Yemen. In effect the U.S. by its own actions contributes to this spread of Islamic militancy in Yemen.

Leon Panetta says that Al Qaeda's spreading presence in Yemen can be handled by targeted operations rather than boots on the ground. Of course Panetta does not add that there are already special forces on the ground in Yemen. In many cases they are active in directing Yemeni forces and providing information for drone attacks. In one event a group were attacked and at least one wounded.

Panetta defended the use of drones as the most precise weapons the U.S. has in the campaign against Al Qaeda. Yet we know that some attacks have been not precise at all. The earliest attack killed almost all women and children in a remote mountain village.At that period the U.S. had the Yemeni government claim responsibility even though it was later proved to be by the Americans. Another attack killed a tribal elder who was traveling to negotiate with a militant. Of course Panetta says nothing of this but says:“Our whole effort there is aimed at going after those terrorists who threaten to attack our country,” He added:“We’ve been successful. We’ve gone after a number of key targets there. We’ll continue to do that.” The U.S. has also been successful in helping spread Islamic militancy and continued drone strikes will further that collateral effect as well.

While the Yemeni armed forces guided by the U.S. have recaptured some ground there are heavy casualties on both sides and a suicide bomber in revenge killed about a hundred Yemeni troops in Sanaa. The new U.S. supported president (vice-president under Saleh) has sworn to defeat Al Qaeda at his swearing in ceremony. This ensures that he will have the help of the US. against any rebellion. Any opposition will be termed Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda linked. Soon the U.S. will not be involved in counter terrorism but counter insurgency. More drones and other weapons will be required and more boots on the ground who will not be described as such since they will be special forces. For more see this article.

Remote tiny Spratly Islands could be conflct locale between U.S. and China

The Spratly islands are claimed by many countries including China (and Taiwan), Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. See this article for more about the islands.

Although there are no indigenous inhabitants countries who claim the island at times send military personnel to assert their territorial claims. There are rich fishing grounds in the area and at times there have been confrontations between fisherman from one nation and military patrols of another nation that claims the islands. This has happened between Vietnamese fishermen and Chinese military vessels and more recently Chinese fishermen and Philippine military. NOTE: The fishing is damaging the environment.. Explosives are sometimes used damaging the reefs and other illegal methods are used as well including poisoning.

As well as the fish there is evidence of rich gas and oil deposits under the sea in the area. This ramps up the race to claim possession of the islands. The U.S. comes into the picture as a country that wants to extend its domain and project its power into the region. The U.S. also wants to confront and contain the expanding Chinese influence in the region.

Historically the U.S. has projected its power through defense agreements with allies in the region. After the second world war the U.S. had great influence in the Philippines after liberating the islands from the Japanese--along with Filipinos themselves of course. In 1951 the U.S. signed a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines.

The treaty states: “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.” The U.S.supports the claim of the Philippines to the Spratly islands. Should there be a confrontation between the Philippines and China over the issue as there very well could be then the U.S. would be obliged to intervene on the side of the Philippines.

Recently the Philippines Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin claimed that the U.S. had an obligation to protect militarily Philippine territorial claims in the South China Sea. This would include the Spratly's. Gazmin pointed out that the U.S. Secretary of Defens Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton secretary of state had both renewed their pledge that the U.S. will honor the 1951 military pact. China naturally has recently objected to the U.S. backing the Philippines and also military presence in the area.

This U.S. Philippine relationship could spark serious confrontations between the U.S. and China. For example Philippine warships recently tried to capture Chinese fishing vessels in the region but were driven off by Chinese fighting vessels. China is increasing its military presence in the area to counter Philippine actions. For its part the U.S. has increased its military presence and cooperation with the Philippine government. For more see this article.

U.S. will carry on with drone strikes in spite of Pakistani objections: Leon Panetta

Just to make sure that Pakistan understands that the U.S. will not agree to Pakistani demands that drone strikes cease Leon Panetta U.S. Defense Secretary has again stated that the U.S. will continue the strikes. This makes the Pakistani government's position politically difficult if not impossible. There have been no less than three parliamentary motions demanding the strikes cease. The latest demand makes cessation of drone strikes a condition for re-opening NATO supply routes through Pakistan,

  Meanwhile the Pakistani government reports that the U.S. and the Pakistanis are negotiating solutions to outstanding issues. Yet the U.S. through Panetta is announcing that the drone strikes are not negotiable but will continue. As usual the Pakistani government has fudged on the matter. In a recent article Pakistan while at the same rhetorically denouncing the attacks as violations of sovereignty and counter-productive claims that there are negotiations with the U.S. on alternatives to the drone strikes.

Foreign Office spokesperson Moazzam Khan claims that the two sides are discussing alternatives to drone attacks. Really? Then why is Panetta saying that they will continue? Khan said: "We have raised drone attacks issue with the US at various levels. We are trying to resolve this issue on a priority basis. There is a need to resolve all issues with the US."

Panetta says that the drone attacks defend the U.S. against terrorists. Most of the terrorists being killed however have little interest in attacking the U.S. but of course every intention of driving the U.S. out of Afghanistan. Added to this is the fact that many who are killed may not be terrorists at all. For more see this article.

ACLU sues Obama administration under Freedom of Information Act

The ACLU is suing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The group seeks information on the guidelines Obama officials use in deciding on targets to be killed in drone attacks.

The request “seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killing”. The administration has refused to provide any information on these issues. The CIA is insisting to federal courts that it is unable even to confirm or deny the existence of the drone program.The CIA argues that revealing any of that information would endanger national security. This is such astonishing nonsense that it is almost beyond belief.

Consider this! A number of Obama administration officials have publicly not only recognised the existence of the program but praised it as being effective. Obama recently said:“we are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” and and the program is “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on.” Former CIA Director and current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also spoke about the program noting that the drone program has “been very effective at undermining al Qaeda and their ability to plan those kinds of attacks.” Finally Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech tried to justify the program in legal terms.Should not all these officials be prosecuted for endangering the national security of the U.S. by revealing all this about a drone attack program that cannot be admitted even to exist?

Obama administration officials are free to say whatever they like about the program for their own political ends. But when the public seeks basic information it cannot be revealed for reasons of national security. For much more see the full article in Salon.

Accused soldier in Kandahar killings flown out of Afghanistan

The U.S. sergeant accused in the deaths of 16 Afghans has been flown out of the country. The destination of the flight was not disclosed.

The announcement was made late at night and there has been no comment yet from Afghan officials. Afghan legislators have been demanding that the soldier be tried in Afghan courts. However, in Afghanistan U.S. soldiers are subject to U.S. military law. The U.S. would never allow him to be tried by Afghans.

The announcement comes as U.S. defence secretary Leon Panetta arrived in Afghanistan to meet with commanders and local officials. A Pentagon spokesperson said that the sergeant was flown out"based on a legal recommendation...We do not have appropriate detention facilities in Afghanistan,".. "in this kind of case". Translated I think this means that the U.S. is very worried that attempts might be made by Afghans to get at the sergeant causing more conflict with Afghans if he were to stay in Afghanistan. However the result of this move may be to anger the populace even further.

A U.S. official would only say the accused had been taken to a "pretrial confinement facility" in another country but would not identify the country. The Afghan government however was notified of the move. No word as to whether the Afghans objected.

While one military official said the transfer did not mean the trial would take place outside of Afghanistan another official said legal proceedings would continue in his place of detention. For more see this Al Jazeera article.

UPDATE: The soldier was flown to Kuwait

Obama administration supports quickly sending bunker buster bombs to Israel

U.S. officials report that Netanyahu the Israeli Prime Minister has formally asked the Defense Secretary Panetta to approve the sale of GBU-28 bunker buster bombs to Israel. These bombs could be used in an attack on Iran.

In added pressures President Obama according to reports told Panetta to work directly with Israeli officials and to consider the request favorably. The aim is to send the weapons as soon as possible.

Along with the refueling aircraft, also requested, the bunker bombs would be key to any Israeli attack on Iran. Many Iranian nuclear facilities are highly reinforced.

Israel did receive some of the bombs in 2009 but receiving more has not just practical value but also is symbolic in that Obama can be seen as on side with the hawkish Netanyahu government.

Although Obama has so far opted for diplomacy and severe sanctions he has also said that he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. In particular he rejected the idea of containment of a nuclear Iran. This certainly keeps an attack on the table. Sending bunker-bombs is also a sign of support for an attack on Iran.

At present however Iran has agreed to negotiations and also has agreed to let IAEA inspectors in to a secret military facility. For more see this article.

Pakistani Doctor acted for CIA to gather DNA evidence on Bin Laden family

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted in CBS interview that a Pakistani doctor was recruited by the CIA to collect DNA evidence that established that Osama was in the compound subsequently attacked by Navy Seals who killed bin Laden.

The doctor Shakil Afridi is in jail on suspicion of treason. The doctor set up a fake hepatitis vaccination program whose actual purpose was to collect DNA samples from the occupants of the compound. A nurse was allowed into the compound.

Once the DNA material was verified Obama authorised the attack that killed Bin Laden. The whole episode was quite embarassing to Pakistan since it was not informed of the operation until it was well under way. Also, it seems that Pakistan should have known about Bin Laden being at the compound.

Since the doctor helped the U.S. fight against terrorism a cause that Pakistan too claims to support, it will be problematic to find him guilty of treason. Perhaps there will be some quiet diplomacy with the good doctor as with President Saleh of Yemen coming to the U.S. for medical reasons. His health may be in danger if he stays in Pakistan! For more see this article.