Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.30.10

Afghanistan. From today's Wall Street Journal: "Thousands of U.S. forces are massing for a coming offensive in Helmand [Afghanistan], one of the country's most violent regions."

This offensive will go nowhere. Why? Because the Taliban is one or two steps ahead of the Obama war planners.

While the US concentrates forces in one area of Afghanistan, the Taliban is attacking other areas. They are taking Stan Musial's advice: "Hit Em Where They Ain't." A couple of weeks ago, the Taliban rocked Kabul, the capital, in an attack on the center of the city. Yesterday the Taliban attacked Laskar Gah and engaged the Afghan security forces in a day-long battle. Where they will attack next is unknown, but for sure it will not be Helmand.

In the meantime, the US, its allies and the Afghan government continue their efforts to buy off a section of the Taliban. A $500 million corruption fund is being built up for this purpose. But it is a good bet that a healthy portion of the loot will end up in pockets of officials.

The US is somewhat desperate to find a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. Certainly the Obama war planners understand that this war will go on forever with no US victorious achievements. And in the meantime the American public and the left wing of his own party will grow impatient. Plus, Obama is under pressure to reduce spending while the war drains away money.

And thus the Obama people have sought to make back-door contact with the Taliban to reach a settlement. The US primarily went into Afghanistan to disrupt a training and organizing center for the enemies of Israel and its client state, the USA. The US would be willing to reach an agreement (with Israel's ok) if the Taliban would limit themselves to Afghanistan and cease efforts outside of Afghanistan's borders.

To this end, the United Nations' top representative to Afghanistan met with the Taliban recently to find a diplomatic solution. The results of this contact are unknown to the public right now.

But, it is reasonable to assume that the Taliban is in no mood to negotiate. Why should they? The momentum is on their side. The longer the US is involved, the greater will be the pressure to get out. And time will certainly not strengthen the Afghan government.

There is no easy way out for Obama.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.29.10

Afghanistan. The London conference on wishful thinking and excursions into never-never-land concluded yesterday. Afghan President Karzai and representatives of 65 other countries have been meeting to discuss and determine the future of Afghanistan. It is as if these people are living on another planet or are from another dimension.

The conference communique stated that, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the Afghans will take the lead in securing the most volatile parts of the country within three years, with the first provinces potentially passing to Afghan control by the end of this year." Karzai even said in his address to the conference that "Afghan forces will take control of physical security of the whole country within five years."

All this regarding a government that was almost overthrown a couple of weeks ago. All this regarding a government that controls nothing in the country except the capital, Kabul. All this regarding a President the US tried to get rid of just a few months ago. All this regarding a President, some of whose military advisors aided an assassination attempt against him. All this regarding an American strategy for Afghanistan that is designed to simply hold the fort rather than trying to defeat the Taliban.

In other words, the plans of Karzai and the conference have no possibility of success or even minimal achievement. 

Further details of a now crowned "Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund" were also revealed. Japan, the United Kingdom and others are planning to raise $500 million to reach out to militants to give them "a way back into mainstream life on the condition they renounce violence." 

Karzai also promised to make a "key focus" the fighting of corruption. It is a well-known strategy to combat corruption by having $500 million laying around in a poor country. [Sarcasm.]

Karzai told the meeting he intends to invite the Taliban leaders to a tribal conference. This ought to be good. Not only will the Taliban not attend, but the conference itself will be another of those CIA-type front organizations.

In short, Afghanistan, from the point of view of Obama and friends, is going you-know-where in a hand-basket. And yet Obama and his allies engage in the most delirious of delusions about how the situation is steadily improving.

Just wait for the Taliban's next show of force to see all these grandiose plans go up in smoke.

On a humorous note, Obama let Hillary Clinton feel important by addressing the conference. Most of her remarks were just a tired reiteration of Obama-talk. Then she took it upon herself to tell Afghanistan how it should run itself. "Afghan women must not be viewed [by whom?] simply as victims who need to be sheltered. They must be respected and valued as leaders -- a treasury of untapped talent that Afghan society needs." Other cultures are always receptive to being told they "must" do something. [Sarcasm.]

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.28.10

Afghanistan. American fruitless efforts to snooker all or a part of the Taliban continue.

An international conference of some 60 foreign ministers is meeting now in London to discuss the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. To reach that time, this conference is usurping the independence of Afghanistan and telling them how to build their security forces, army, etc.

But, the significant revelation at the conference is the existence of a fund whose donors include the US, UK and Japan, the purpose of which is to 'help' former Taliban members to integrate into the Afghan government's version of reality. The fund is Japan-led and will be run by the Afghans. Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, plugged the fund to the conference.

Comments:

1. If the 'allies' really believe that a fund like this is going to have an appreciable effect on the Taliban, they are gravely mistaken. Individual members of the Taliban can see that the Taliban will ultimately win the battle with the Karzai government, probably sooner than later. They have no incentive to accept a bribe from the US, Japan et al. In fact, accepting the money would only stigmatize the recipient.

2. Does anyone think that a fund run by the Afghan government will remain corruption-free? The great likelihood is that the big bucks will find their way into the pockets of any Afghan leader powerful enough to take the money. And there are plenty of those leaders.

3. The conference itself is kind of a joke. The US can only persuade a few countries to participate militarily in the Afghan war. So, to appease American critics and to get some of the financial burden off its shoulders, the US has convened these 60 nations. The conference is supposed to give the impression that Afghan policy is decided by many, many countries. This is a joke. The US will do the deciding. The fact that Hillary Clinton is at the conference gives some indication how little this conference has to do with the war planning in Washington.

World Government, in Today's News 01.27.10

World Government. Ensuring that national banks act in a unified international manner on bank reform and thereby move toward world government that would dictate such action, is the order of the day at the Davos, Switzerland conference this week.

The Institute of International Finance, an influential organization that represents the Rothschild interests and speaks for international banks and other financial institutions, made clear on the eve of Davos, according to the Wall Street Journal, that "go-it-alone moves by governments to regulate big banks are in danger of fragmenting the global financial system."

Independent regulatory action by nations is a matter of great concern to the Rothschilds and other owners of the world's wealth because 1) it mucks up the wealth production of these families, and 2) it is a step away from the over-riding aim of developing a world government. The Rothschilds and their cohorts are therefore making a big push at Davos.

William Rhodes of Citigroup and a leading figure in the IIF revealed the frustration with lack of international coordination: "Almost every day now, we are seeing policy decisions and announcements that are not being coordinated and have the potential of doing systemic damage."

The IIF "reiterated past warnings that regulators should be aware of the cumulative costs of all their separate initiatives...which could combine to constrain bank lending" (WSJ) and thereby constrain bank profit-making from bank-lending.

As the discerning can see, world government is a matter of economic necessity for the world bank owners to ensure a ever-growing rate of profit. Moving in the direction of this world body is a matter of some urgency. Rhodes "said it was important to move quickly lest momentum for change was lost..." 

In general the world wealth owners are looking to the G-20 organization to be the genesis of their world government. The G-20 is an international coming together of representatives of the 20 largest economies. The Rothschilds and others are working hard to encourage the G-20 leaders to transform themselves into a world governing body for economics. Already some steps have been taken by the G-20.

The IIF is looking to the Davos conference to be a stepping stone to the next G-20 meeting in November. Rhodes stressed that the Davos group needed to implement guidelines by the time of the G-20 conference. Rhodes, "That will be a test of the whole G-20 process."

Various political commentators seldom speak of the possibility of world government. But the process continues. Step by step, the Rothschilds and their friends are moving to establish their world governing body (read dictatorship). Someday we will wake up and there it will be.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.25.10

Afghanistan. About a week after the Taliban waged a day-long battle in the center of power in Kabul, the Afghan government has announced that the parliamentary elections will be postponed until September. Is there a connection between the two events? You betcha. 

The Taliban attack revealed that the Afghan government is completely isolated. An election at this time would only confirm the isolation. And so, Karzai and his American buddies have decided that it is the better part of wisdom for Karzai to simply and dictatorially avoid the elections, in the hope that things will be better eight months from now.

The delay won't work, but that is Obama's problem.

Simultaneously the Obama team has been trying to signal the Taliban that a deal is possible. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted in Pakistan saying, "The Taliban, we recognize, are part of the political fabric of Afghanistan at this point. The question is whether they are prepared to play a legitimate role in the political fabric of Afghanistan going forward -- meaning participating in elections, meaning not assassinating local officials and killing families."

Translated: 'we used to say the Taliban was evil incarnate. Now we are willing to say they are a legitimate political entity and to stop the fighting if they agree to participate in the political process.'

The Taliban, of course, has no reason to make such a deal. They have the Afghan regime isolated and the US scrambling for face-saving. Why should they make a deal in those circumstances? They have victory in sight. Why not go for it?

Pakistan and India, in Today's News 01.24.10

Pakistan and India. United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been visiting India, then Pakistan. The purpose of the tour seems to be to convince the two countries to end their hostility and instead oppose the enemies of Israel. 

Gates has made a big push on how Al Qaeda and others are trying to foment conflict between India and Pakistan. Gates is pleading with them to not fall for this, and realize their joint enemy is Al Qaeda et al.

Gates' point about Al Qaeda trying to cause a regional conflict is questionable. What Al Qaeda would have to gain by such a conflict is a mystery. But, Gates does know that a defense of Israel requires at least neutrality toward Israel by mideast and asian nations. 

Israel's illegitimate presence in the mideast will continue to provoke conflict. Moreover, Israel continually makes aggressive moves toward the Palestinians and its neighbors in a misconceived effort to defend itself.

The Israelis target-of-concern nowadays is Iran. Israel has been seeking US support for a military confrontation with Iran for more than a couple of years. The US, for its part, has preferred to try to undermine Iran through CIA sponsored internal conflict. When this US strategy runs its course with no appreciable results, the US will be stuck with the Israeli alternative of direct engagement with Iran.

Enter Gates and his attempt to line-up two asian and mideast powerhouses against Arab militancy. When a confrontation with Iran occurs, it will be a big help to the US and Israel if the major players in the region don't get in the way.

*****

BTW, shouldn't the Secretary of State be involved in these kinds of discussions? Well, no. Obama smartly prefers to keep Hillary Clinton involved only with secondary issues. 

Obama, in Today's News 01.23.10

Obama. The Wall Street Journal termed Obama's Elyria, Ohio speech as a sharpening of "his populist tone." This is a nice way of covering over Obama's extreme rhetoric. Only communists up to now have said things the way Obama did. 

Case in point: Obama: "I'm not going to have the insurance companies click their heals and watch their stocks skyrocket, because once again there's no control on what they do." Lenin or Castro could not have said it better.

One of the prime cryptocracy goals to be achieved during the economic crisis precipitated by the cryptocracy was to bring the economy under government control and to begin to institutionalize a planned economy. The idea is that planning and central control will reduce the risk to the cryptocracy's wealth production. Annoying things like competition for the wealth would also be eliminated.

To this end, Obama has sought to establish czars and oversight committees for various industries, the auto industry and General Motors most notably. He has promoted a thorough reorganization of financial regulation giving oversight powers to the Federal Reserve. He has tried to bring the banks and insurance companies under government control. His health care reform is designed to bring this wide-ranging industry under central planners and bureaucrats.

The truth of the matter is that all these efforts are only crawling along. With the exception of the government take-over of GM, all Obama's 'reforms' are foundering, which is none too pleasing to the cryptocracy. And thus is explained Obama's desperate rhetoric which reflects his and the cryptocracy's frustration with the lack of success.

Health care is the most obvious of the failures. His effort to install a new system of financial regulation is going nowhere. The banks have fought back and tried to get the yoke of government control off their necks. His effort to control salaries and bonuses in the financial world has had only meek success.

There is an ominous side to this situation. The cryptocracy made the economic crisis possible in order to create a political atmosphere where quick passage of the cryptocracy's aims through Congress could occur. But few cryptocracy proposals have managed to make it through Congress into law. As Obama was quoted in reference to the health reform, "The longer it takes, the uglier it gets."

This result is a problem for the cryptocracy. Their favored mode of bringing change is to create a crisis and then rush through their 'reforms.' But, it didn't work as well as they wanted this time. So what are they to do? The very worrisome reality is that they are undoubtedly concluding that it will take an even greater crisis to achieve their ends. They are therefore certainly now preparing an even worse crisis. 

When the cryptocracy will drop the next crisis on us is unknown, but be prepared.