America's Third War of Covert Operations

"America's Third War" is the title of an article by Micah Zenko that can be found here. Zenko notes that democratic governments have a responsibility to keep citizens informed about their activities although he admits that some secrets that would compromise national security should remain secret. However in practice governments keep secret whatever they think might be politically damaging even though revealing what they are doing would not harm national security. Often "national security" is used as a cover to keep activities secret that ought to be known by citizens.

As well as employing targeted killings in Afghanistan and Libya where the U.S. has been involved in combat the U.S. has also attempted to kill targets in at least four other countries. Approximately 300 attacks have been made in Pakistan, 20 in Somalia, 30 in Yemen and apparently one in Syria. While most of these attacks are by drones, they have also used cruise missiles launched by ships and aircraft. Others are conducted by AC-130 gunships and special operations forces.

Estimates vary but around three thousand people have been killed in these attacks including Al Qaeda suspects and local militants plus an unknown number of civilians. These activities are what Zenko calls America's Third War. Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan wars there has been little oversight or debate in congress about this war. There are no time lines ever discussed as to when it might end, no coherent strategy and no transparency.

Although claims are made that drone attacks are made only under very strict conditions there is no transparency that would allow this to be verified. In fact attempts to gain information are blocked on grounds of national security. Even the very existence of the Pakistan attacks are still not admitted even though everyone knows who is responsible.

The continuing policy of keeping citizens in the dark about the Third War is indefensible and contrary to the need for the U.S. government to be accountable. While keeping what is happening secret the administration nevertheless crows about its success as happened when Obama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan or Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. For more see the full article. That the Third War may be counter productive and produce virulent anti-Americanism and more militants never seems to be seriously considered.

Democracy Now interview with former NSA whistle blower William Binney

The war on terror has given the U.S. government and agencies such as the National Security Agency vastly increased powers. Anyone who questions or reveals corruption or violation of rights by the government can expect to be harassed and intimidated.

This is what happened to the three people interviewed on "Democracy Now". Jacob Applebaum is an internet security expert who works with Wikileaks and Laura Poitras is an Oscar nominated documentary film maker. However, the video portion I have included is an interview with William Binney.

Binney was a top NSA official. He worked at NSA for 40 years. He resigned because he found that the agency was collecting information about Americans with no judicial oversight. He considered those actions unconstitutional. Notice that he does not seem to worry that the same data collection violated non-Americans privacy rights!

When Binney went to the Senate Intelligence Committee and reported this illegal spying by NSA there was immediate retaliation. FBI agents raids his home--while he was in the shower--They pointed guns at him and warned him he would not do well in prison. Poitras has been searched and interrogated every time she enters the U.S. and had her laptop seized. Applebaum too is stopped and interrogated. None of course have been charged with a crime. They are not even on the no fly list. For more see the full video or here.

U.S. House subcommittee has hearings on legality of drone attacks.

Not a very impressive article. The arguments against drone use are not advanced at any length. The defense is a joke. As is inevitably the case the argument starts out with the inevitable move of framing their use as part of a war. No one questions that according to the article. No doubt there is a war on drugs, a war on crime, and a war on poverty. Lets use drones on the same premise in those areas. The are some assumptions that are just not to be examined since the whole house of cards would fall down. This is from CNN so it is not too surprising the reporting is so bland and uncritical.

House subcommittee hearing questions legality of drone attacks

By the CNN Wire Staff

NEW: ACLU calls drone attacks part of illegal program for U.S. to target, kill terror suspects
Since President Obama took office, number of drone attacks has risen
U.S. law professors debate legality of such attacks during a House subcommittee hearing
Biggest controversy: legality of strikes conducted by CIA, as opposed to U.S. military

Washington (CNN) -- Congress delved Wednesday into the politically explosive issue of unmanned drone attacks, questioning the legality of operations increasingly used to combat al Qaeda and Taliban militants in countries such as Pakistan.

In the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, unmanned aircraft -- or drones -- attacked militant targets 45 times.

Since President Obama took office, the numbers have risen sharply: 51 last year and 29 so far this year.

Most attacks have targeted suspected militant hideouts in Pakistan. While the United States is the only country in the region known to have the ability to launch missiles from drones -- which are controlled remotely -- U.S. officials normally do not comment on suspected drone strikes.

Based on a CNN count, all of the 29 drone strikes this year have hit locations in North Waziristan and South Waziristan, along the 1,500-mile porous border that Pakistan shares with Afghanistan.

Several top U.S. law professors debated the legality of the attacks in a hearing before the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, the second such hearing held by the subcommittee within the past two months.

"The United States is committed to following international legal standards," said Rep. John Tierney, D-Massachusetts, the subcommittee's chairman. "Our interpretation of how these standards apply to the use of unmanned weapons systems will set an example for other nations to follow."

The four legal scholars invited to testify, however, offered sharply contrasting views of what constitutes an acceptable legal standard. The biggest controversy appeared to surround the legality of strikes conducted by CIA operatives, as opposed to strikes by the U.S. military.

"Only a combatant -- a lawful combatant -- may carry out the use of killing with combat drones," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor from the University of Notre Dame law school.

"The CIA and civilian contractors have no right to do so. They do not wear uniforms, and they are not in the chain of command. And most importantly, they are not trained in the law of armed conflict."

O'Connell also said that "we know from empirical data ... that the use of major military force in counterterrorism operations has been counterproductive." The U.S. government, she said, should use force only "when we can accomplish more good than harm, and that is not the case with the use of drones in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia."

David Glazier, a professor from Loyola law school in Los Angeles, California, defended the drone attacks on the grounds that there is "no dispute that we are in an armed conflict with al Qaeda and with the Taliban." That fact "allows the United States to call upon the full scope of authority which is provided by the law of war."

Glazier said there is "nothing within the law of war that prohibits the use of drones. In fact, the ability of the drones to engage in a higher level of precision and to discriminate more carefully between military and civilian targets than has existed in the past actually suggests that they're preferable to many older weapons."

He conceded, however, that there are legitimate concerns about the CIA's use of drones. CIA personnel are "clearly not lawful combatants, [and] if you are not a privileged combatant, you simply don't have immunity from domestic law for participating in hostilities."

Glazier warned that "any CIA personnel who participate in this armed conflict run the risk of being prosecuted under the national laws of the places where [the combat actions] take place." CIA personnel, he said, could be guilty of war crimes.

William Banks, the founding director of Syracuse University's Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, said the U.S. government has engaged in targeted killings of individual combatants dating at least back to a 1916 border war with Mexican bandits.

Banks said the authors of the 1947 National Security Act, which traditionally gives the CIA much of its legal authority, probably didn't contemplate the targeted killings tied to drone attacks. But the statute, he said, was "designed as dynamic authority to be shaped by practice and by necessity."

"The intelligence laws permit the president broad discretion to utilize the nation's intelligence agencies to carry out national security operations, implicitly including targeted killing," he said. U.S. laws "supply adequate -- albeit not well-articulated or understood -- legal authority for these drone strikes."

The American Civil Liberties Union sent a public letter to Obama on Wednesday that said the drone attacks are part of an illegal program authorized by the administration allowing suspected terrorists -- including Americans -- to be targeted and killed by U.S. operatives.

"The program you have reportedly endorsed is not simply illegal but also unwise, because how our country responds to the threat of terrorism will in large measure determine the rules that govern every nation's conduct in similar contexts," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.

"If the United States claims the authority to use lethal force against suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere in the world -- using unmanned drones or other means -- then other countries will regard that conduct as justified. The prospect of foreign governments hunting and killing their enemies within our borders or those of our allies is abhorrent."

Peter Bergen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan group, suggested that the increase in drone attacks during the Obama administration is, in part, revenge for the bombing of a CIA base in eastern Afghanistan that killed seven Americans on December 30, 2009.

"The people who died in this suicide attack were involved in targeting people on the other side of the border," he said earlier this year.

Long War Journal, an online publication that charts data for U.S. airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, says the air campaign "remains the cornerstone of the effort to root out and decapitate the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other allied terror groups, and to disrupt both al Qaeda's global and local operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Such attacks, which have taken a civilian toll in many cases, have frequently caused tension between Pakistan and the United States.

CNN's Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.





Find this article at:

Prompt Global Strike Program expensive and dangerous

As the article points out, this whole project is a Rumsfeld throwback. There seems to be very little discussion of this among all the talking heads of the mainstream media. Not only may the missiles be mistaken for a nuclear attack but it seems rather ludicrous to be using these against terrorists. The fight against terrorism costs a tremendous amount for what is achieved. Terrorists ruin multi-million dollar vehicles with 15 dollar IED's now very expensive weapons are being used to attack very small groups of terrorists apparently. No doubt many potential U.S. enemies will wonder if all of this has anything to do with terrorism. They will start their own programs to counteract the weapons beginning a new arms race. This is the legacy of the Nobel Peace Prize President who is following in the footsteps of Rumsfeld. This is from wired.com.

How To: Risk World War III, and Blow Billions Doing It
By Noah Shachtman
The Pentagon’s plan to fire ballistic missiles at terrorists isn’t just a nuclear Armageddon risk. It’s a ludicrously expensive way to accidentally start World War III: each weapon could cost anywhere from a few hundred million to $1 billion.

The Defense Department wants to spend about $240 million next year on the controversial “prompt global strike” project. Eventually, it could lead to weapons that could strike virtually anywhere in the planet within an hour or two. (Here’s an interview I did with Rachel Maddow on Friday about the plan.) But that quarter-billion would be the tiniest of down payments.

“There are no accurate cost estimates for the program, largely because the technology is unproven,” writes Joe Cirincione at ForeignPolicy.com. His back-of-the-envelope calculation: $10 billion for 10 conventionally-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, meant to strike at terrorists on the move. “Each missile with its tiny payload could easily go over $1 billion each.”

Official price tags are a little lower. The Air Force figures a single demonstration of such a missile might eat up $500 million. Follow-on weapons missiles might only cost $300 million apiece, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz guessed at a recent House subcommittee hearing. But Schwartz isn’t at all sure such how much use there’d be for a budget-buster like that.

“There is a place, I think, for that kind of capability. I don’t think that that’s the sort of thing you would use broadly, because you know, fundamentally what you don’t want to have is a 300 — let’s just say, a $300 million weapon applied against a $30,000 target,” Schwartz recently told a House subcommittee.

Critics like Cirincione (and me) are worried such conventional ICBMs would look to Russia and China like nuclear launches — risking an atomic response every time one of the weapons was sent into the sky. Defenders of the prompt global strike effort note that the missiles would be based far from America’s nuclear arsenal, and would follow different flight paths. So the risk of one of these missiles touching off an atomic showdown are very small. “Nuclear in one place. Conventional in another. This isn’t a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup,” notes the National Space Studies Center’s blog.

Maybe the U.S. can put enough safeguards in place to persuade Moscow and Beijing that America’s conventional ICBMs aren’t nukes. (And maybe, as commenter “Almanac” notes, the Russian and Chinese radars are functioning well enough to tell the difference.) Maybe. But what happens other countries follow our lead, and start assembling their own conventional ballistic missile stockpiles? Will Pakistan and India be able to assure eachother that their intentions are pure? How and Israel and Iran? Perhaps a unipolar planet can survive an American global strike arsenal. A multipolar planet — that’s less likely.

Prompt global strike first came to prominence during Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure at the Pentagon. Back then, the Defense Department had a knack for spending outlandishly on far-fetched programs: laser-equipped 747s, lightning guns, quarter-weight tanks that could stop bombs with data. Under Bob Gates, the culture has shifted a bit. Common sense, wartime relevancy, and fiscal restraint now figure more prominently in weaponeering. And that’s what makes the embrace of prompt global strike such a mystery. It’s a Rumsfeld throwback - risky, willfully ignorant of how the world works, and ridiculously expensive.

[Photo: Wikimedia]



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/how-to-risk-world-war-iii-and-blow-billions-doing-it/#ixzz0mP3XpViA

High Level Pakistan US meetings coming up in Washington

No doubt plans will be worked out as to how Pakistan is to continue with its fight against Islamic militants. No doubt none of the Pakistani officials will say boo about drones at these meetings although they may make a few little bleats when they return home. This is from the news (Pakistan)

High-level Pak-US dialogue begins on 18th

Thursday, March 11, 2010

WASHINGTON: The US capital, always a hub of political activity, is set to witness intense rounds of high-stake dialogue between Pakistani and US officials which will commence with the arrival of Pakistan navy chief, Admiral Noman Bashir on March 17.

Amiral Noman Bashir will begin top-level negotiations with the US officials in the Pentagon on March 18. Only days after the arrival of Admiral Bashir, chief of army staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is reaching Washington to hold very important dialogue with the US officials on the issue of regional security. Gen Kayani is expected to meet, among others, the US national security advisor Gen James Jones, secretary defence Robert gates, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Admiral Mullen and ambassador Holbrooke. ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha is also expected to join Gen Kayani in the dialogue with the top US officials.

In the last week of March foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi will be in Washington with a high-level delegation to lead Pak-US strategic dialogue. The US side is expected to be led by secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Then, in the second week of April, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani will arrive here to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, which is being hosted by US President Obama. Forty-three (43) heads of state or governments are expected to attend the summit. Prime Minister Gilani is due to arrive here on April 11. Besides attending the summit he is expected to meet President Obama. Top Pakistani and US officials are also working to arrange a meeting between the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Gilani though it is not confirmed yet whether such meeting will take place.

A US official said on condition of anonymity: “I hope it takes place in a good atmosphere because we are really working hard not only to get it done but also to make it meaningful.” Some officials also indicated that the prime minister might go to New York for a day as well.

European Union Rejects Deal to grant U.S. access to bank transfer data.

The U.S. is aiming to be Global Big Brother it would seem. All in the name of the Great and Holy War on Terror and never in the name of the Great Snooper Global Cop. The deal was reached without the participation of the European Union Parliament and in the opinon of many without proper safeguards. The possible misuse of this information is obvious but then no one is to question Big Brother and any attempt to stop this romp over privacy is regarded as a blow against the war on terror and a sign that Big Brother may have to work around the dem0cratic process. All for our own safety and good of course.


E.U. rejects deal to allow U.S. access to bank transfer data

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer



The European Parliament on Thursday strongly rejected a deal that would have allowed U.S. authorities continued access to data on European bank transfers, striking a blow to the Obama administration's effort to continue a controversial global terrorist finance tracking program begun under the George W. Bush administration.

The lawmakers' 378 to 196 vote is sure to spark a transatlantic tussle over what the United States has said is a significant tool in tracking and disrupting terrorist plots aimed at the U.S. and Europe.

The vote came despite intense lobbying in recent days by top U.S. officials including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. The parliament's president, Jerzy Buzek, said the assembly wants more safeguards for civil liberties and believes human rights have been compromised in the name of security.

The U.S. mission to the E.U. said it was "disappointed" with the E.U. move, calling it "a setback for U.S.-E.U. counterterror cooperation."

"This is a remarkably irresponsible act by the European parliament," said Stewart A. Baker, former Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary for policy. "They're creating a safe haven for terrorist finance."

The U.S. ambassador to the E.U., William E. Kennard, threatened last week to bypass the federation entirely in counterterrorism efforts if the parliament nixed the agreement.

European governments must now renegotiate the agreement with the Council of the European Union, the E.U.'s principal decision-making body. The deal would have allowed data sharing for nine months while the Americans sought a longer-term deal with the Europeans.

A source of contention for European lawmakers was that the pact was reached by U.S. officials and the council, without the parliament's involvement. It was agreed to in November and was to have taken effect Feb. 1. and expired at the end of October.

"There's a whole list of concerns that have to do with insufficient redress for E.U. citizens, no sufficient clarity about whom the data will be shared with and the fact that it is bulk data that are shared," said Sophia in 't Veld, a Dutch member of parliament opposed to the deal. "The data handed over is a huge pile, not targeted at all. So that was a huge issue."

U.S. officials say that what they actually search for and get to see is "narrowly" targeted and subject to stringent oversight.

The U.S. terrorist finance tracking program involves access to portions of vast databases of financial transaction information held by a Brussels-based consortium of banks known by its acronym SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. At issue was the way in which the U.S. gained access to, searched and used the data, and whether sufficient privacy safeguards were in place.

The program was launched in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Treasury Department has been issuing administrative subpoenas every 30 days or so for the financial payment records of terrorist suspects. The searches must be "narrowly tailored" to the suspects, said Stuart Levey, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department.

The classified program's existence was revealed by the New York Times in 2006, touching off controversy, especially in Europe. Lawmakers there were angry because they were not consulted beforehand and European privacy officials said the program violated European data protection laws.

U.S. access to the data became an open question after the European Parliament, under the Treaty of Lisbon, acquired new power to review and approve initiatives that affect internal security, counterterrorism and law enforcement.

U.S. officials wanted the parliament to use that power to approve the November agreement reached by U.S. Treasury officials and the council. It allowed the United States to conduct terrorism-related searches against millions of financial payment messaging files stored in servers near Amsterdam.

Levey touted the value of the terrorist tracking program in op-eds that ran in European papers last week. It has supplied "more than 1,500 reports and countless leads" to counterterrorism investigators in Europe and more to other countries, and has "played a key role in multiple terrorism investigations on both sides of the Atlantic," he wrote.

He said it aided European governments during investigations into the foiled 2006 al-Qaeda plot to attack transatlantic flights between Europe and the United States. The program "provided new leads, corroborated identities and revealed relationships among individuals responsible for this terrorist plot," Levey wrote. Last September, three people were convicted in Britain and sentenced to at least 30 years in prison.

An E.U. review led by French judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere concluded last month that the program was effective and contained sufficient privacy safeguards.

But the parliament's Civil Liberties Committee said in a report last week that the debate is not about SWIFT so much as about how Europe "could cooperate with the US for counterterrorism purposes" and that the agreement was potentially a step "down the slippery slope of accepting other requests for commercial data with, for example, Skype, PayPal and other companies in the information-telecommunication field . . . for law enforcement purposes."

28 million Americans will need food stamps in 2010

This apparently is a record level of use but is not too surprising given the recession. One would think with food banks stretched to the limit and unable to meet demand there might be a renewal of the war against poverty but this seems not to be happening although Obama is now placing more emphasis upon jobs. However the war on terror and renewed terror threats seem to be taking up a lot more attention just now. Entitlement programs such as welfare and food stamps are being looked at as prime targets for cuts as state and federal deficits soar. This is from presstv.

28 million US citizens will need food stamps in 2010

The Congressional Budget Office has announced that the number of US citizens receiving food stamps will rise to an unprecedented level this year.

Over 28 million US citizens will need food assistance in 2010, the CBO said this week.

If the US administration fails to reduce the numbers, US President Barack Obama's Democratic party is not likely to achieve good results in the November 2010 midterm elections, pundits say.

However, Isabel Sohail of the Brookings Institution, who is an expert on poverty issues, says that the increase in spending on welfare will help the US recover from the economic crisis.

The fact that so many people need food stamps could shock many in the US, which has boasted that its economy has the ability to create employment opportunities, BBC reported.

Although Obama has been focusing on healthcare reform and the situation in Afghanistan over the past few months, it seems he has now moved the issues of unemployment and poverty

U.S. visit feeds Pakistani worry over U.S. attack

This is from the wiredispatch.
There seems the possibility of a new alliance between Iran and Pakistan on the one hand and the U.S. and India on the other. However, the U.S. nuclear deal with India is causing problems for the government in India as the communists have left the coalition. The new government of Pakistan is more interested in internal peace than with pleasing the U.S. by pursuing a war against the tribal regions. Such a war will not only loose many Pakistani troops but also foster a rash of suicide and other attacks elsewhere in Pakistan. The relationship between the U.S. supported Karzai govt. and Pakistan is fast deteriorating. The attack on the Indian embassy in Afghanistan may also have involved Pakistani intelligence.
If the US or Israel attacks Iran or if the US violates Pakistani territory more flagrantly than it already has done the situation will become much worse. Obama will be no relief from this policy. Obama is all for doing more in Afghanistan and at one time even said the U.S. should follow insurgents into Pakistan without permission! There is no change with Obama just the same tired old dangerous U.S. imperialism.

U.S. visit feeds Pakistani worry over U.S. attack
Robert BirselReuters North American News Service
Jul 13, 2008 02:22 EST
ISLAMABAD, July 13 (Reuters) - The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, visited Pakistan on the weekend, fueling speculation that the United States was about to take action against militants in northwest Pakistan.




Pakistan has been a close U.S. ally in the global campaign against terrorism but the United States has become increasingly frustrated at what it sees as insufficient effort by Islamabad to fight militants on the Afghan border.
A U.S. embassy spokeswoman confirmed that Mullen had made a one-day trip to Pakistan on Saturday, but said she had no details about his meetings. Pakistani military and government spokesmen were not available for comment.
Pakistani newspapers said Mullen, in talks with Pakistani military commanders and leaders of a new government, had expressed deep frustration with growing cross-border militant attacks and had called for decisive action to stop it.
"Sources quoted Mullen as complaining that militants were moving across the border with greater liberty now than during the previous government," the Dawn newspaper said.
Pakistan's semi-autonomous ethnic Pashtun tribal belt on the border has became a sanctuary for al Qaeda and Taliban militants fighting Western soldiers in Afghanistan and against security forces in Pakistan where 15 soldiers were killed on Saturday.
The U.S. Pentagon said last month insurgent havens in Pakistan were the biggest threat to Afghan security.
Pakistan has ruled out allowing foreign troops onto its soil although U.S. pilotless drones have been increasing their flights, and attacks, over the Pakistani side of the border.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi sought in talks in Washington on Friday to assure the United States his country was doing all it could to fight militants on the border.
"QUITE AGGRESSIVE"
What Pakistanis see as a more aggressive U.S. action on the border has fueled speculation of a U.S. thrust.
Last month, 11 Pakistani border soldiers were killed in a U.S. air strike as U.S. forces battled Taliban militants.
On Saturday, Pakistan lodged a protest with the United States over fire from Afghanistan on Thursday that wounded six Pakistani soldiers. Afghanistan's NATO force blamed militants for the fire saying they were trying to "spark a border incident".
Feeding the worry, some U.S. politicians, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, have said the United States could attack al Qaeda inside Pakistan without Pakistani approval.
A new government took power after President Pervez Musharraf's allies were defeated in February elections, vowing to negotiate an end to violence, but U.S. commanders in Afghanistan say such peace efforts have led to more militant attacks there.
Many Pakistanis oppose the U.S. campaign against militancy and blame Musharraf's cooperation with the United States for inciting violence. Any U.S. action in Pakistan would only exacerbate the problem, they say.
The News newspaper said Mullen was accompanied by officials of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency: "Apparently the Americans were quite aggressive in their claims," it said.
NATO commanders in Afghanistan have said there mandate goes only as far as the border and their troops would go no further but such statements have done little to dampen speculation of a U.S. attack into Pakistan.
"Newspapers keep reporting this but there is an understanding between the government of Pakistan and the NATO and U.S. forces which I don't think the U.S. would violate," said a senior Pakistani official, who declined to be identified.
But an analyst said limited U.S. strikes were possible.
"I would not say that they would come with full ground forces because they understand that would be a great folly," said security analyst and retired general Talat Masood.
"But it is possible that if they find that there is a cluster of militants which has to be dealt with, they might land some commandos," he said. (Additional reporting by Augustine Anthony; Editing by David Fox)
Source: Reuters North American News Service

Key Pentagon Strategist Plots Global War on Terror

So Vickers is responsible for the policy of recruiting jihadists in Afghanistan to overthrow the Soviet regime in Afghanistan. This is the policy that created jihadists such as Bin Laden. Apparently the author of this article has never heard of blowback. The same jihadists are now the US opponent in the so-called war on terror. No doubt Vicker's creation has created lots more work for him. As in Iraq where the US is creating Sunni militias to fight Al Qaeda no doubt Vickers is producing another group that will blowback against the US and the Shiites in Iraq. This will create the need for further funding for the US military. Vickers is assured a job for life.

Key Pentagon strategist plots global war on terror
By Ann Scott Tyson

The Washington Post




Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Vickers "tends to think like a gangster," an ex-aide says.


WASHINGTON — In the Pentagon's newly expanded Special Operations office, Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Vickers is working to implement the U.S. military's highest-priority plan: a global campaign against terrorism that reaches far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

The plan details the targeting of al-Qaida-affiliated networks around the world and explores how the United States should retaliate in case of another major terrorist attack. The most critical aspect of the plan, Vickers said in a recent interview, involves U.S. Special Operations forces working through foreign partners to uproot and fight terrorist groups.

Expansive plan

Vickers' job also spans the modernization of nuclear forces for deterrence and retaliation, and the retooling of conventional forces to combat terrorism, a portfolio so expansive that he and some Pentagon officials once jokingly referred to his efforts as the "take-over-the-world plan."

Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operative, was the principal strategist for the biggest covert program in CIA history: the paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The movie "Charlie Wilson's War," released last weekend, portrays Vickers in that role, in which he directed an insurgent force of 150,000 Afghan fighters and controlled an annual budget of more than $2 billion in current dollars.

Today, as the top Pentagon adviser on counterterrorism strategy, Vickers exudes the same assurance about defeating terrorist groups as he did as a 31-year-old CIA paramilitary officer assigned to Afghanistan, where he convinced superiors that, with the right strategy and weapons, the ragtag Afghan insurgents could win.

"I am just as confident or more confident we can prevail in the war on terror," said Vickers, 54.

Vickers joined the Pentagon in July to oversee the 54,000-strong Special Operations Command (Socom), based in Tampa, Fla., which is growing faster than any other part of the U.S. military. Socom's budget has doubled in recent years, to $6 billion for 2008, and the command is to add 13,000 troops to its ranks by 2011.

Senior Pentagon and military officials regard Vickers as a rarity: a skilled strategist who is creative and pragmatic. "He tends to think like a gangster," said Jim Thomas, a former senior defense planner who worked with Vickers.

Vickers' outlook was shaped in the CIA and Special Forces, which he joined in 1973. In the 10th Special Forces Group, he trained year-round for a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union. One scenario he prepared for: to parachute into enemy territory with a small nuclear weapon strapped to his leg and position it to halt the Red Army.

Vickers recalled that the nuclear devices did not seem that small, "particularly when you are in an aircraft with one of them or it is attached to your body." Was it a suicide mission? "I certainly hoped not," Vickers said.



An expert in martial arts, parachuting and weapons, and second in his class at Officer Candidate School, Vickers joined the CIA's paramilitary unit in 1983. Soon after, he received a citation for combat in Grenada.

His greatest influence was in the precise way he reassessed the potential of Afghan guerrilla forces and prescribed the right mix of weaponry to attack Soviet weaknesses.

Today Vickers' plan to build a global counterterrorist network is no less ambitious. The plan is focused on a list of 20 "high-priority" countries, with Pakistan posing a central preoccupation for Vickers, who said al-Qaida sanctuaries in the country's western tribal areas are a serious threat to the United States.

Building network

The list also includes Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Iran, and Vickers hinted that some European countries could be on it. Beyond that, the plan covers 29 additional "priority" countries, and "other countries" he did not name.

"It's not just the Middle East. It's not just the developing world. It's not just nondemocratic countries; it's a global problem," he said. "Threats can emanate from Denmark, the United Kingdom, you name it."

Vickers, who has advised President Bush on Iraq strategy, is convinced that more U.S. troops are not enough to solve the conflict in Iraq and that working with local forces is the best long-term strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Working with proxy forces also will enable the United States to extend and sustain its influence, something it failed to do in Afghanistan, he said. "After this great victory and after a million Afghans died, we basically exited that region and Afghanistan just spun into chaos," he said.

"It's imperative that we not do that again," he said.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Doris Lessing on 9/11 etc.

The over-reaction was actually very useful to Bush et al. The reaction is exactly what the Bush administration wanted to advance the agenda of the PNAC. (Lessing certainly didn't win the Nobel Prize for being overly diplomatic!) The fear of Americans is the foundation upon which the War on Terror and all its attendant foreign policy missions is built. The reaction was quite fortunate for policymakers and in particular the neo-cons. In fact the PNAC group said that something like Pearl Harbor was needed to galvanise the US public into action. The result was even better since the world reaction was to join the Americans. Canada, for example, joined the US in Afghanistan and is still there.

Lessing angers America by saying September 11 'was not that terrible'
By Emily Dugan
Published: 24 October 2007
Doris Lessing, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Literature, has risked incurring the wrath of Americans by accusing them of overreacting to the 11 September attacks on the Twin Towers, which she said were really "not that terrible".

Comparing the al-Qa'ida attacks – which killed almost 3,000 people – to the IRA's late 20th-century campaign – in which an estimated 2,000 were killed over three decades – the outspoken British author said that Americans were "naive" in thinking that the tragedy was unique.

"11 September was terrible, but if one goes back over the history of the IRA, what happened to the Americans wasn't that terrible," she told the Spanish newspaper, El Pais. "Some Americans will think I'm crazy. Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think." Lessing, whose 57-year career was praised this month by Nobel judges for the "scepticism, fire and visionary power" of her work, also said of the Americans: "They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be."

The author, who celebrated her 88th birthday on Tuesday, recalled the seriousness of the Provisional IRA's Brighton bomb attack on Margaret Thatcher's government during the 1984 Conservative Party conference. It narrowly missed the Prime Minister, killed five others and injured 34.

"Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government," said Lessing. "It killed several people while a Conservative conference was being held and which the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was [attending]. People forget."

The prize-winning author, who has always taken a strong stance against political injustice, also lashed out at the leaderships of Tony Blair and George Bush. "I always hated Tony Blair, from the beginning," she said. "Many of us hated Tony Blair. I think he has been a disaster for Britain and we have suffered him for many years. I said it when he was elected: 'This man is a little showman who is going to cause us problems.' And he did."

Lessing, whose book The Golden Notebook inspired a generation of feminists, did not have much kinder words for the present occupant of the White House.

"As for Bush, he's a world calamity," she said. "Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars."

Her criticisms were not limited to the West. Born in 1919 in the city of Kermanshah, in what is now western Iran, she said of the current regime in Tehran: "I hate Iran. I hate the Iranian government. It's a cruel and evil government. Look what happened to its president in New York. They called him evil and cruel in Columbia University. Marvellous! They should have said more to him. Nobody criticises him, because of oil."

Lessing has always been highly political – she was an avowed communist after the Second World War. Among her 15 novels are The Golden Notebook and The Grass is Singing, which deal with political and sexual taboos, weaving them into complex narratives.

Speaking at the Hay Festival in June this year, she said that freedom to write and say what you thought was very important for an author. "We are free... I can say what I think. We are lucky, privileged, so why not make use of it?"

US officers meet regularly with PKK terrorists in Iraq

Anyone with eyes can see the total hypocrisy of the US with respect to its relations with groups that it calls terrorists. If they are useful to US policy the US will not try to eliminate them as the war on terror would demand but instead negotiates with them to serve US ends. This exposes the moral bankruptcy of the war on terror.
The US view of itself as fighting evil is entirely bogus as is shown by the fact that the same groups of jihadists that were once heroes in the fight against Evil when the Evil Empire was the Devil of the Day are now themselves the Evil Demons and Islamofascists who are the target in the morality play called the War on Terror. The jihadists haven't changed throughout all this just their relationship to the US: allies are good, enemies evil. US propaganda embodies a form of moral nihilism that makes use of US citizens belief in the moral uprightness of their country to sell aggression and US hegemony worldwide.
This is fromo a Turkish newspaper.Daily Telegraph: US Officers Have Regular Meetings with PKK Terrorists Print

Tuesday , 11 September 2007





* By Taner BAYCAN (JTW)

British Daily Telegraph claimed that the US officers have regular meetings with the PKK terrorists in Northern Iraq. Damien McElroy in his report mentioned “US army helicopters are reportedly used to shuttle officers to regular meetings with Kurdish fighters”. Mr. McElroy interview with the head of the PKK terrorists, Murat Karayilan (means ‘Black Snake’ in Turkish language). Mr. Karayilan accepted the US assistance to the PKK yet argued that the US did very little for the Kurds and can do more.

Iran accused the US last week of supporting the terrorists against Tehran. Similarly the Turkish media blamed the Americans of being supporter of the PKK terrorism although the PKK is a terrorist organization according to the US laws.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal from Ankara-based USAK, one of the leading Turkish think tanks, told the JTW that the US should do something immediately against the PKK terrorists, otherwise Turkish-American relations will be damaged. Similarly Dr. Sedat Laciner said “All signs clearly show that the US ignores the PKK terrorists in Northern Iraq”. “The PKK is a terrorist organization. Americans and the EU say so. If US ignores or supports the PKK in the region, the US’ fight against global terrorism will lose its base. Turkey’s support, as moderate Muslim country, in fighting terrorism is crucial. However if you support my terrorists, I can not help you in fighting against your terrorists. The US’ strange policies regarding the PKK terrorism nourishes anti-Americanism in Turkey. The US lost at least 30 years in Turkey. If Washington thinks the Turkish people or politicians forget all these, they are wrong. Nobody in Ankara has forgotten the Johnson Letter for instance, and they will remember how the US is not co-operative against the PKK terrorism” Dr. Laciner added.

The PKK has armed terror bases in Northern Iraq. The number of bases is about 20. The number of the PKK terrorists is about 5.000 in Northern Iraq. The US promised to remove all of the PKK bases yet no concrete step has been taken.

10 September 2007