FRESH FROM BILDERBERG, MCMASTER URGES ANOTHER AFGHAN ‘SURGE’ | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

FRESH FROM BILDERBERG, MCMASTER URGES ANOTHER AFGHAN ‘SURGE’

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that President Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster will soon be proposing yet another troop increase in Afghanistan. According to the Times, “The White House shelved the deliberations over Afghanistan three weeks ago, after an initial Pentagon proposal to deploy up to 5,000 additional American troops ran into fierce resistance” from White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and other advisers.

But McMaster, reports the Times, is “undeterred” and “plans to bring the debate back to the front burner this coming week,” according to an anonymous U.S. official.

The current debate recalls the early days of the Obama administration when President Obama was basically railroaded by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal into sending over 30,000 U.S. troops in an ill-fated “surge” that was advertised by its supporters as the answer to the Afghan quagmire. But the “surge,” rather than resulting in victory, produced a rash of “green on blue” attacks by our alleged Afghan allies upon U.S. troops.

It is worth recalling that the Afghan “surge” was a policy that was enthusiastically endorsed by the U.S. Establishment. As the editorial board of the New York Times wrote in May 2009: “We hope… that the president and his team have come up with a strategy that will combine aggressive counterinsurgency tactics with economic development.” Washington think tanks, such as the Center for a New American Security and the Brookings Institution, also lined up in support. Yet the results were abysmal: more U.S. troops died in Afghanistan under Obama than under George W. Bush. Overall, the war in Afghanistan, which is now in its 16th year, has taken the lives of over 31,000 Afghani civilians – and by some estimates perhaps 10 times over – and over 3,500 members of the U.S.-led coalition at a cost of over $1 trillion

Webmaster's Commentary: 

Mr. Mc Master, a word, please.

I would, sir, like to politely suggest that doing the same thing, precisely the same way, repeatedly, yet expecting a different outcome, is a classical definition of insanity.

And 16 years on, what, sir, will make this surge "different" from all the "surges" which have preceded the surge your are suggesting?!?

The short answer, sir, is absoflippinglutely nothing.

The cost, in blood and money already spent on an unwinnable war, has already been far too high, but of course, that means nothing to you.

American military, killed and maimed for life are simply collateral damage in the bigger war for profits for the American war machine.

And of course, such a suggestion is sending financial orgasms down the spines of all your buddies in the military/industrial complex, who will profit brilliantly from such a US military move.

President Trump, please; you need to realise that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

And pop quiz, Mr. President; who was the last person to successfully conquer, and hold Afghanistan, even for a little while?!?

You might remember this guy from history; his name was Alexander the Great, and even he...was only able to hang on to this hunk of the world for 3 years, through a series of marriages and alliances.

Mr. President, Afghanistan is not called "the graveyard of empires" for no good reason.

What should happen here is the most rapid removal of US and NATO troops out of the country as is safely possible, then have intense negotiations with whatever government is left standing in Kabul for the pipeline rights, and rights to the abundance of mineral riches it possesses.

After all, it was the squabble between Bush and the Taliban which really lead to Afghanistan's invasion in 2001:

US threatened Afghanistan government with military action, if their leadership's cost on oil pipelines was too high

The article goes on to state:

"US Plans Invasion of Afghanistan July 21, 2001: US officials (Simons, Inderfurth and Coldren) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin. [Salon, 8/16/02] Taliban representatives boycotted this meeting due to worsening tensions. Pakistani ISI relays information to the Taliban. [Guardian, 9/22/01] At the meeting, former US State Department official Lee Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." [Guardian, 9/26/01]

Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October 2001 at the latest." The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says "it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban." [BBC, 9/18/01]

US Threatens Afghanistan with Carpet Bombs One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between "carpets of bombs" - an invasion - or "carpets of gold" - the pipeline. [Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, released 11/11/01]

Niaz Naik says Tom Simons made the "carpets" statement. [Salon, 8/16/02] According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader.

Taliban Offers Osama, US Refuses The Taliban offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. [Village Voice}

That last statement was not "inexplicable"; Bin Laden was a US covert operative, and the Bin Laden and Bush families had been business partners with a string of ventures, both successful, and unsuccessful.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA