Middle-East Conflict

Iraq: Bloodiest Day in a Year

2009-04-24T05:08:00.000-07:00

Massive Bombings Point to Widening Violence
by Jason Ditz, April 23, 2009

Today was the deadliest day in a year in Iraq, with two massive bombings killing at least 90 people and suggesting that far from being a handful of isolated incidents, the increase in attacks over recent weeks is a trend which threatens to return the nation to the disastrous levels of violence in recent years.

There have been 33 bombings in Baghdad alone this month, including a high profile strike today against a crowd waiting for Red Crescent food parcels being handed out by the Iraqi national police. US military spokesman Lt. Col Brian Maka, however, tried to downplay the situation, saying “these attacks are an attempt to incite violence, but the Iraqi people have shown that they are rejecting this bankrupt philosophy.”

Though no group has yet taken credit for today’s attacks, both targeted Shi’ites. Shi’ites have taken the brunt of the attacks in recent weeks, an ominous sign as the Shi’ite-led government cautions the massive US-allied Sunni Awakening Council has been infilitrated by both Ba’athists and al-Qaeda. As the Shi’ite death toll rises, it seems only a matter of time before their own militant factions begin to retaliate, resuming the tit-for-tat sectarian violence that killed an enormous portion of the civilian population and made refugees out of even more.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/23/iraq-bloodiest-day-in-a-year/

6 NATO oil tankers torched in Pakistan

2009-04-24T05:05:00.000-07:00

Peshawar, April 10, 2009.
Six NATO oil-supply tankers have been torched in Pakistan following an attack by local militant armed with guns and petrol bombs.

The predawn assault on Thursday took place in the Chamkani area of Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province, a Press TV correspondent reported.

Fire engulfed the NATO terminal which was filled with at least 50 tankers. Six tankers were destroyed and another seven were damaged in the attack.

NATO forces frequently use the main land routes through Peshawar to ferry supplies meant for troops fighting in war-torn Afghanistan and insurgents are mounting attacks on the lines used by the coalition's vehicles.

Police cordoned off the area and were searching for the gunmen, as five fire brigade vehicles struggle to bring the flames under control.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=92313&sectionid=351020401

Iran, Israel ready to go to war

2009-04-24T05:01:00.000-07:00

MOSCOW. (Pyotr Goncharov, for RIA Novosti) - On April 18, the London Times reported that "the Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government."

Several days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel of being the "most cruel and racist regime," sparking a scandal at a UN racism conference in Geneva.

At the same time, Israeli websites reported that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu had met with the Israeli Defense Minister, the Chief of the General Staff and other defense leaders three times during the past week. He was reportedly informed about preparations for an assault at Iran's military facilities and was "pleasantly surprised" at how far these preparations had advanced.

How true can these reports be, and how high is the probability of Israel bombing out Iran's nuclear program?

Israel has always said that it would not allow Iran to advance to a technology level allowing it to create a nuclear bomb. One can understand its logic. While developing its nuclear technology, Iran keeps reminding Israel that it has no right to exist on the political map of the world.

Israel has always seen a "red line" in Iran's nuclear program beyond which Iran would become a direct threat to Israel. As defined by Israeli and European analysts, this "red line" comprises a certain development level of nuclear technology and a deadline, 2010. Therefore, it can be assumed that the media has reported a planned inspection by the new Israeli premier of the country's readiness to liquidate its biggest enemy.

There are several facts pointing in this direction.

Israel and the United States plan to hold a major ballistic missile defense exercise later this year, called Juniper Cobra. The maneuver will jointly test three different American and Israeli missile defense systems.

The Israel Air Force's Air Defense Division, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) have held the Juniper Cobra exercise for the past five years. The upcoming exercise is planned to be the most complex and extensive yet.

This may also mean that Israel and the U.S. are preparing for 2010, even if only in terms of defense.

Can a military scenario be avoided?

Israel has been living on the assumption that it must not be defeated. The smallest step backward is seen there as tantamount to the demise of the Israeli state.

Meanwhile, Iran has openly declared its ambition to become the regional power. It can attain its goal if it proves that Israel is ineffective as a state.

Why not try to push the enemy towards defeat, especially a military defeat, by forcing him to start a military operation with unpredictable consequences?

The current Tehran leaders have been saying and doing things that are actually forcing Israel to order its aircraft to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Tehran has announced several nuclear and missile achievements, thereby encouraging the international community to question the "peaceful nature" of its nuclear program.

As a result, the general concern is gradually giving way to the belief that Iran will eventually create a nuclear bomb, or that it is rapidly moving towards this goal. Ahmadinejad said in one of his recent speeches that Iran's nuclear ambition was fuelled by the immorality of the states that have the nuclear technology.

Indeed, this does not describe Iran's nuclear program as peaceful.

There is a definite loser in the Iranian-Israeli confrontation. It is Russia. If a war breaks out now, everyone will blame Russia.

The EU and the United States will blame Russia for failure to convince Tehran to stop its uranium enrichment program, Israel will blame Russia for selling weapons to Iran, and Iran will blame it for failure to deliver the S-300 defense systems.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

For more information in Russianhttp://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090422/121244833.html

US lawmaker: Iranian missile threat exaggerated

2009-03-26T20:07:00.000-07:00

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher is under consideration to be undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, a position that has involved shaping policy on US missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic. As chair of a congressional military appropriations panel, she has been a critic of US long-range missile defense systems.

Her comments came as the Obama administration was reviewing the European missile defense plans, and has signaled to Russia that it is willing to reconsider them, should the threat from Iran recede. Russia has adamantly opposed the European plans, which it believes would undermine its nuclear deterrent and encroach on its interests.

On another defense matter involving Russia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, told the same conference on missile defense the subject will be at the center of a new set of security talks between Washington and Moscow and could become "a positive political tool" rather than an impediment to better US-Russian relations.

Advocates of the US defense plans for Europe argue that missile defense systems should be deployed urgently to counter Iran, which the United States has estimated could have missiles capable of reaching Europe or America within a decade. Congresswoman Tauscher said the threat has been exaggerated.

She told a conference on missile defense that the United States and allies should first develop and field short-range missile defense systems that could protect forces deployed in combat operations. She said advocates of the European plans "have been running around with their hair on fire."

"The argument that the US would be naked against an Iranian threat unless we deploy the GMD system in Europe is simply not right," she said, referring to the long-range system.

Levin suggested that the United States and Russia should set aside their differences on missile defense and begin cooperating against Iran to make a decisive difference toward weakening Iran as a missile threat and start US-Russian cooperation on defenses against Iranian missiles.

Russia strongly opposes the plan crafted by the Bush administration and under review by the Obama administration to place US missile interceptors in Poland and an associated radar in the Czech Republic. European defense from a long-range Iranian missile attack is the stated purpose.

Levin did not suggest that the Obama administration bargain away the Bush-era plan, although there has been speculation that US President Barack Obama would offer to scrap that plan in return for Russian help in persuading Iran to end its alleged nuclear program.

"Even if we were simply to begin serious discussions on the subject [it] would send a powerful signal to Iran," Levin said. "Iran would face in a dramatic way a growing unity against her pursuit of dangerous nuclear technology."

Later he added, "The bottom line is simple: We have a new opportunity to seek a cooperative approach with Russia on missile defense, and we should seize it. The upside potential of such an effort is huge, a geopolitical game changer. The downside is minimal."

Levin cited two matters the United States and Russia could take up immediately: a previous Russian offer to share data from an early warning radar in Azerbaijan, on Iran's northern border, and a never-executed US-Russian agreement to open a facility in Moscow for sharing missile-related data.

Speaking at the same conference, Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said those who develop US missile defenses must take into account that adversaries are increasingly likely to use means other than traditional ballistic missiles in any attack on US interests.

"Ballistic missiles are about as passe as e-mail," Cartwright said. "Nobody does it anymore." Instead the emerging threat is missiles that can be maneuvered in flight and missiles that remain inside Earth's atmosphere, he said. Thus missile defenses must be flexible and adaptable enough to be useful against a range of threats, he added.

UN expert 'biased' on Israel's Gaza offensive: US

2009-03-26T20:04:00.000-07:00

The United States Monday said UN expert Richard Falk was "biased" in calling for an investigation on Israel's January offensive in the Gaza Strip on grounds it could be construed as a war crime.

"Look, we've expressed our concern many times about the special rapporteur's views on dealing with that question," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told a press briefing.

"We've found the rapporteur's views to be anything but fair. We find them to be biased. We've made that very clear," he added.

In a report presented Monday at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, UN expert on the Palestinian territories Falk called for a probe to assess if the Israeli forces could differentiate between civilian and military targets in Gaza.

"If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful, and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law," Falk said in the report.

"On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion," he added, pointing out that attacks were targeted at densely populated areas.

Wood said the United States was aware it could not prevent an investigation, but stressed: "if there are going to be these types of investigations, they need to be non-biased.

"They need to take into account the situations on the ground and the realities on the ground and -- and go from there.

Israel in late December launched a three-week offensive in Gaza which left over 1,300 Palestinians dead and countless of homes destroyed. The offensive was a retaliation for Palestine rocket attacks on Israeli territory.

Falk had focused his report on the legal issues arising from the war, as he had been unable to enter Gaza to assess the human rights situation on the ground.

He attempted a mission in December, but was detained by the Israelis in a facility close to Ben Gurion airport before being expelled the day after.

Falk has been highly critical of Israel's policies against the Palestinians, saying early December that they amounted to a crime against humanity.

Source: AFP American Edition

RIGHTS-US: Detainee Offered Freedom for Silence on Torture

2009-03-26T19:24:00.000-07:00

By William Fisher

NEW YORK, Mar 24 (IPS) - A British court ruled Monday that U.S. authorities had asked a Guantanamo Bay detainee to drop allegations of torture in exchange for his freedom.

A ruling by two British High Court judges said the U.S. offered Binyam Mohamed a plea bargain deal in October. Mohamed refused the deal and the U.S. dropped all charges against him later last year.

Mohamed is an Ethiopian who moved to Britain when he was a teenager. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and claims he was tortured both there and in Morocco. He was transferred to Guantanamo in 2004. He was finally returned to Britain in late February 2009, with no charges against him.

He is suing the British government, charging that its intelligence services were complicit with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in facilitating his "extraordinary rendition" and torture while in custody.

The court said the plea bargain also asked Mohamed to plead guilty to two charges and agree not to speak publicly about his ordeal.

Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a legal action charity that has represented Mohamed for four years, told IPS, "In Binyam Mohamed’s case, the United States clearly prized secrecy over justice. It simply did not want the truth to get out."

He added, "That has nothing to do with national security, but everything to do with the potential for national embarrassment. If we are to truly combat terrorism, we must use the tools of democracy - openness, fairness, justice - not abandon them, then desperately try to cover up our wrongs."

In their ruling Monday, the British judges revealed how the U.S. government tried to get Mohamed to sign an agreement stating that he had never been tortured, to promise not to speak with the media upon his release, and to plead guilty as a condition of his release back to Britain - all without his lawyers being allowed access to evidence that would help prove his innocence.

This annex of the British ruling was previously kept confidential by the British court because of the U.S. military commission rules, which forbade making the materials public.

The British judges said the U.S. military also wanted Mohamed to assign any rights he might have to compensation to the U.S. government. They insisted that he accept a minimum sentence of 10 years - despite the fact that the U.S. military had not told him what the charges were to be.

Mohamed was also required to waive any claim he might have to seeing any exculpatory evidence identified by the British judges. "If Mr. Mohamed was to ask to see this exculpatory evidence, the ‘deal’ would be off," a Reprieve spokesperson said.

"The facts revealed reflect the way the U.S. government has consistently tried to cover up the truth of Binyam Mohamed’s torture," said Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith. "He was being told he would never leave Guantánamo Bay unless he promised never to discuss his torture, and never sue either the Americans or the British to force disclosure of his mistreatment."

During his time in Guantánamo Bay, the U.S. military tried to prosecute him through the military commissions, which were characterised by the British former Lord Justice Johan Steyn as "kangaroo courts."

Reprieve said, "This proposal discussed by the British courts was made by the U.S. military at a time when he was not charged with anything. It also came after a long history of efforts to make Mohamed plead guilty to crimes he insisted that he did not commit."

"He had always been willing to enter a plea of 'no contest' - which essentially means you deny your guilt, but enter a plea because you recognise it is the only way to resolve the case - on the condition that he would be sentenced to time served, and immediately released back to Britain." By early 2009, Reprieve charges, "The U.S. military was still trying to get Mohamed to plead guilty to something - anything - in order to save face. The final ‘offer’ was that this man, originally alleged to be a most dangerous terrorist, should plead guilty and receive a sentence of only ten days in prison, less than one might expect for many driving offences. Mohamed rejected this offer, as he continued to insist that he was not guilty." "Offering a man who is protesting his innocence freedom on the condition that he pleads guilty to something and serves a 10-day sentence is face-saving on an horrific scale," said Reprieve Executive Director Clare Algar. The case has caused a furor in Britain and a problem for the U.S. State Department. Britain’s High Court refused to release seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion, saying that the redacted material lent credence to the torture allegations by Mohamed. The court said it reached its decision because of what it called a threat from the U.S. to reconsider sharing intelligence with the British.

But, in a highly unusual criticism, the High Court expressed dismay that a democracy "governed by the rule of law" would seek to suppress evidence "relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be."

The court said the George W. Bush administration had made the threat in a letter to the Foreign Office last September. It called on the Barack Obama administration to reverse that position.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has denied that there was any threat from the U.S.

After Mohamed was captured, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he had been complicit with Jose Padilla in a plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Padilla was never charged with this plot, but was convicted on other terrorism-related charges by a federal court in 2007. Last year, the Justice Department said it was dropping the dirty-bomb charges against Mohamed, and last October all charges against him were dropped.

Mohamed is currently appealing a separate U.S. case, on behalf of himself and four other terror suspects. In that case, government lawyers from the Obama administration sought a decision not to reinstate a case that was thrown out by a lower court last year because government lawyers argued successfully that allowing the case to go forward would jeopardise U.S. national security.

In opposing reinstatement of the case, Obama’s lawyers used the same "state secrets" privilege used by Bush lawyers in the original case. The appeals court has not yet ruled in the case, which charges that a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, Jeppesen Dataplan, knowingly provided aircraft and logistical services to facilitate the Central Intelligence Agency’s rendition of Mohamed to overseas prisons.

(END/2009)

US commander warns American troops will be in Afghanistan for years

2009-02-22T11:08:00.000-08:00

by Peter Symonds

The top US commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, warned on Wednesday that the huge boost to US troop numbers announced this week would have to continue for years. His comments underscore the fact that the Obama administration is preparing for a dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan that will inevitably heighten tensions throughout the region, especially in Central Asia.

In a bid to shore up the US-led occupation of Afghanistan, President Obama announced on Tuesday that an additional 17,000 US soldiers would be sent there. McKiernan told the media that the troop buildup was "not a temporary force uplift" and would "need to be sustained for some period of time," adding that he was looking at "the next three to four to five years". The US already has 36,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan, along with about 30,000 other foreign soldiers operating under NATO command.

The latest troop increase will not be the last. McKiernan repeated a previous request for an extra 10,000 in Afghanistan on top of those already announced. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates did not rule out additional US forces, but noted that no additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan until the Obama administration had completed its current strategic review.

At a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Poland, Gates pressed NATO allies for further support for Afghanistan. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warned that NATO could not "afford the price of failure in Afghanistan" and urged "all members of the team... to pull closer together and pull harder in 2009". But the commitments made were cosmetic, underlining the continuing deep tensions inside NATO between the US and European powers such as Germany and France.

UK Defence Secretary John Hutton complained that Britain was already doing its share, saying that "the European members of NATO need to do more". Italy promised 500 soldiers. Germany indicated that it may send an additional 600 troops, but to the largely peaceful north of Afghanistan to assist with elections due in August. France committed no extra soldiers. While expressing his disappointment at the lack of extra forces, Gates urged NATO members to contribute economic aid and to the training of Afghan security forces.

The NATO summit highlighted the intersection of the war in Afghanistan with growing rivalry in Central Asia. One day before the meeting, the Kyrgyzstan parliament voted to shut down a key US air base needed to supply US and NATO forces in land-locked Afghanistan. As supply lines through neighbouring Pakistan have come under fierce attack from anti-US insurgents, the Pentagon has been seeking alternative routes through Central Asia.

Russia, however, has made clear that any shipment of US supplies through the region will depend on its support and will involve US concessions, particularly over the positioning of US anti-ballistic missiles in NATO-allied countries in Eastern Europe. Before the decision to shut down the Manus Air Base, Moscow announced a substantial aid package to Kyrgyzstan. At the same time, Russia has permitted some non-military US supplies to pass through Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan—the first trainload left on Thursday.

The issue is creating divisions within NATO. The US-based think tank Stratfor commented: "The lack of enthusiasm for the Afghanistan surge was matched by growing questions among the Europeans over the military plan itself—both the overarching strategy and the lines of supply. Moreover, the Europeans are anxious to know how and to what extent the US plan involves the Russians." While France and Germany support a rapprochement with Russia, Eastern European countries are opposed to any deal that would weaken US protection against Moscow.

The US confronts a deteriorating military situation in Afghanistan. Commenting on the boost to US troop numbers, General McKiernan said: "What this allows us to do is change the dynamics of the security situation, predominantly in southern Afghanistan, where we are, at best, stalemated." He added: "I have to tell you that 2009 is going to be a tough year."

Other US analysts are less cautious in their warnings. John Nagl, from the Centre for a New American Security, told the British Observer that the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan could eventually rise to 100,000. "The immediate problem is to stop the bleeding. The 30,000 troops is a tourniquet... but that is all we have. If Obama is a two-term president then by the end of his time in office there may only be marine embassy guards in Iraq. But there will still be tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan."

In a detailed statement to a US Congressional committee last week, Anthony Cordesman from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies bluntly warned that "we are losing the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and we have at most two years in which to decisively reverse the situation". He cited military statistics for 2008 pointing to a 33 percent rise in military clashes with insurgents, an increase in roadside bombs of 27 percent and in surface-to-air fire of 67 percent.

Cordesman stressed, however, that such details were secondary to the growing influence of the Taliban and other anti-occupation militias in Afghanistan. He cited in some detail the results of an ABC poll, released this month, which demonstrated falling support in Afghanistan for the occupation, and for its puppet President Hamid Karzai. Just 18 percent supported any increase in US and NATO troops and 44 percent wanted a reduction.

Support for the Taliban was strongest in the south and east of the country, where Pashtun tribes have been subjected to more than seven years of searches, arbitrary detention, military attacks and bombing. Overall, 25 percent of Afghans felt that violent attacks on occupation forces were justified; in the top five high-conflict provinces, the figure rose to 38 percent.

The survey also provided evidence of deteriorating living standards. The proportion of Afghans who characterised their economic opportunities as "very bad" doubled from 17 percent in 2006 to 33 percent. More than half reported an income of less than $US100 a month and 93 percent less than $300. Many registered complaints about fuel prices, lack of electricity, medical care, roads and other infrastructure. Nearly three quarters of respondents were worried about the impact of the global economic crisis.

Far from addressing any of these issues, the surge in US troops in Afghanistan will compound the anger and resentment that is providing a steady stream of recruits to the anti-occupation insurgency. Most of the fresh troops will be assigned to south of the country, where control by US forces and the Karzai government is tenuous, and to the border with Pakistan in an effort to halt the infiltration of Taliban fighters from bases in Pakistan.

The US war in Afghanistan has already spread across the Pakistani border, destabilising the government in Islamabad. The Obama administration has continued US missile strikes from unmanned drones on targets inside Pakistan's tribal areas along the border, killing scores of civilians and inflaming local anger. Proof that at least some of the US drones are operating from a base inside Pakistan will compound the political difficulties facing the government, which has previously disclaimed any knowledge or involvement. The London-based Times and the Pakistani News have both published Google Earth images of three drones parked at the Shamsi air field in southwestern Pakistan.

Under pressure from Washington, the Pakistani army has been fighting a war to suppress anti-US militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Some 120,000 troops have been involved, and more than 1,500 have been killed in the fighting. The army, which has received around $10 billion in US aid, has laid waste to towns and villages, causing hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee. The insurgency has also spread beyond the FATA to areas of the North West Frontier Province, including the Swat Valley, and is even touching on the Punjab, Pakistan's most populous state.

Pakistan announced this week that it had struck a shaky deal with insurgents in the Swat Valley to introduce Islamic Sharia law to the area as part of a ceasefire. Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the media that the Obama administration was concerned that "the truce does not turn into a surrender". He said he had spoken to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari who had assured him that was "not the case" and described the deal as "an interim arrangement".

US Defence Secretary Gates took a slightly different tack, saying on Friday that the agreement was acceptable if it led to reconciliation and the disarming of the insurgents. He made clear that the US was looking to similar arrangements with sections of the anti-occupation forces in Afghanistan, seeking to replicate the tactic used in Iraq to buy off local tribal leaders and use them against hard-line insurgents. "We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan," Gates said.

Washington's neo-colonial occupation of Afghanistan, however, is confronting widespread hostility and a burgeoning armed resistance. Asked about the ability of the US to succeed where the British army in the nineteenth century and the Soviet military in the 1980s had failed, General McKiernan simply said that it was "a very unhealthy comparison". The comparison is perfectly apt. Like the British Raj and the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy, Washington is pursuing a criminal war for the subjugation of Afghanistan and the pursuit of US economic and strategic ambitions in Central Asia. Now, thousands more US soldiers are being sent into a quagmire that shows no signs of ending.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12396

US tests military exit routes out of Iraq

2009-02-22T11:07:00.000-08:00

By CHELSEA J. CARTER
BAGHDAD (AP) - The American military is shipping battlefield equipment through Jordan and Kuwait, testing possible exit routes in advance of a U.S. withdrawal in Iraq, military officials said.
The convoys—carrying armored vehicles, weapons and other items—mark the Pentagon's first steps in confronting the complex logistics of transporting the huge arsenal stockpiled in Iraq over nearly six years.

It's also part of a wider assessment, ordered by U.S. Central Command, to decide what items the military can transfer, donate, sell or toss away once a full-scale withdrawal is under way, Marine Corps and Army officials told The Associated Press.

"Because they are starting to see a potential reduction of forces, they are looking to get more stuff out," Terry Moores, the deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, said Saturday.

"We started slow," Moores said, but added "it's picked up speed" in recent months.

The Iraqi-U.S. security pact, which took effect Jan. 1, calls for American troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities by June 30 and completely pull out troops by 2012—a timeline that could speed up if President Barack Obama keeps to a campaign promise to have troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

In testimony before the U.S. House of Representative earlier this month, the independent Government Accountability Office said the Pentagon needed to redefine its withdrawal strategy, saying it did not take into account either the security pact deadline or Obama's possible accelerated timeframe.

The biggest obstacle is the question of how to move tens of thousands of personnel and millions of tons of equipment out of Iraq, according to testimony by a GAO managing director.

The U.S. brought most of its material in through Kuwait, one of the main staging grounds for the 2003 invasion. There are currently more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"The capacity of facilities in Kuwait and other neighboring countries may limit the speed at which equipment and material can be moved out of Iraq," the GAO report said.

It recommended looking at multiple routes through Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, where the U.S. has already constructed bridge overpasses for heavy tanks on the road between the Iraqi border and the Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Mersin.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the Pentagon has already examined exit routes through Turkey and Jordan. Both countries, longtime U.S. allies, support the withdrawal planning contingencies, said Mullen.

The Marines have made 17 shipments of vehicles and weapons—totaling 20,000 items—through Jordan's Aqaba port, using contractors to haul the items to either commercial container ships or U.S. Navy ships, Moores said in a telephone interview from Bahrain, the base of the U.S. 5th Fleet.

"Jordan and Kuwait offer a great mix of routes and great infrastructure to get our stuff out," he said.

The shipments through Jordan also has given the leaders in Amman an "understanding about what it takes to move equipment and personnel," he said.

"They have already said that if we are willing to move more through Jordan as we draw down, they are willing" to allow it, Moores said.

Though Jordan has close ties to Washington, popular sentiment has been solidly against the war in Iraq.

The route to Jordan would take the military through the desert province of Anbar, which was the hub of the Sunni insurgency and where Marines and Iraqi soldiers fought some of their bloodiest battles. An uprising by local Sunni tribes in late 2006 forced insurgents from their Anbar strongholds in one of the pivotal moments of the war.

Meanwhile, the Army has shipped hundreds of armored and non-armored vehicles to Kuwait, said Army. Col. Ed Dorman, who works on logistics and supply for Multi-National Corps Iraq.

"We're already reducing what we have on hand," he said, adding that the equipment has been returned to bases in Kuwait or the United States.

Much of the Army equipment being moved is material no longer used, such as older mine-resistant vehicles—known as MRAPs—that can be used for training.

Even if the United States sticks to the longer-range withdrawal plans, it still has less than three years to determine how to get its forces and equipment out of Iraq.

"You don't take everything out," Moores said, adding that some items, such as food, water, barricades and sandbags may be left.

Moores said the Corps has been working on a withdrawal plan with a 2010 deadline in mind for the Marines, which has been preparing to expand its presence in Afghanistan.

"If our focus is correct and our thought process is correct, we are well on our way with our planning," he said. "It won't be a mass exodus. It will be a gradual withdrawal."

www.breitbart.com

10,000 British troops to be fighting Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months

2009-02-22T11:03:00.000-08:00

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
More than 10,000 British troops will be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months
Defence chiefs believe the 8,300 troops currently serving in the south of the country need to be bolstered by an extra battle group of between 1,500 and 1,800 men within a year.

The deployment will push the Britain's Armed Forces to the very limit of its fighting capability and will raise fears that the entire operation has now fallen victim to "mission creep".

It is understood that the Army's top generals have given their support for the plan and are now awaiting approval from the Treasury and other areas of government.

The so-called "mini-surge" has been ordered in a direct response to a decision by President Barack Obama to send an extra 17,000 combat troops to counter the growing threat posed by the Taliban.

Although the figure was less than the 30,000 which had been called for by the US military, defence sources believe the move has sent a direct message to the US's and Britain's Nato partners that they must do more to help win the war in Afghanistan.

The new British battle group will consist of an infantry battalion, composed of around 700 troops, bolstered by at least one rifle company of 120 troops. The force will be supported by signallers, medics, engineers and elements of the Royal Artillery.

The Army has notched up a series of major successes against the Taliban, including the retaking of Musa Qala in northern Helmand, a former insurgent stronghold, as well as the operation to create a functioning hydro-electric power station at Kajaki.

But the much vaunted plans to bring reconstruction to the region have stalled, following the deterioration of security in the province.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has now increased troops numbers in Helmand every six months since 2006, when just 3,300 troops were sent to southern Afghanistan to secure the area and to allow reconstruction to begin.

John Hutton, the defence secretary, has persistently called on Britain's allies to do more of the "heavy lifting" in Afghanistan but, apart from France, virtually all have refused to do so.

There are around 56,400 Nato troops in Afghanistan and of those 24,900 are from the US. Britain has the second largest contingent with 8,300, followed by Germany which has 3,460, although most of these are based in the relatively peaceful north.

Canada, one of Britain's major allies in southern Afghanistan, has 2,830 troops based in Kandahar province and has lost 108 soldiers in battle. However, the Canadian government confirmed last week that it plans to withdraw all its troops from the country within two years, a move which will create a vacuum that can only really be filled by the US or Britain.

Mr Hutton said last week that he had not yet received any request from the US for extra troops but added that UK force levels were kept under constant review.

He said: "We haven't received any such request yet, and we obviously keep our force levels in Afghanistan under literally constant review, because we have an obligation… a duty of care, if you like, to make sure that our operations are being conducted as safely as possible; and if there's a need, either for more troops or for more equipment, obviously we look very, very seriously at that."

The arrival of the extra battle group will follow the deployment of a special 300-strong force of bomb disposal troops, which is expected to arrive in Afghanistan in the next few weeks. Details of the deployment are to be announced by Mr Hutton in Parliament next month.

It is understood that extra ammunition technical officers (ATOs), who specialise in bomb disposal, will work closely with troops from the Intelligence Corps to try and discover supply routes of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) into Helmand and the location of bomb factories.

Taliban IED attacks now account for around 70 to 80 per cent of all casualties suffered by British troops, according to defence sources.

Moscow denies NATO access to Afghanistan

2009-01-26T17:45:00.000-08:00

Russia has yet to give NATO or the U.S permission to deliver military supplies to Afghanistan through its territory. That’s according to Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Central Command Chief General Petraeus said Moscow had agreed to open a supply corridor through Russia.

In April 2008, Russia made deals with the Alliance on railway transit of non-military supplies to Afghanistan. It also made bilateral deals with France and Germany allowing air transit to Afghanistan.

Russian expert Lieutenant-General Leonid Sazhin says the U.S. needs a Russian ground transit route if it wants to reliably supply its troops in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the US may be forced to withdraw from the troubled region.

The U.S. and NATO are looking for alternative routes to transport supplies to Afghanistan after an increase in Taliban attacks from neighbouring Pakistan.

Washington has pledged to almost double its contingent in Afghanistan this year.

NATO's big failure?

By now, The U.S. operation in Afghanistan has been on for more than seven years, beginning in 2001 as a direct response to the 9/11 attacks.

Its purpose was simple: to capture Osama Bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime, which according to US Bush Doctrine, was harbouring terrorists.

The US forces swooped in - and NATO needed in on the action.

Still, analysts say that the situation for the coalition forces in the country is gardually deteriorating.

”Operational updates on the ground say that we are loosing a war. The Taliban has actually increased insurgent attacks,” said Malou Innocent, a Foreign Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C.

Moreover, the coalition has yet to achieve its initial goals in this war.

Fact are speaking for themselves: Bin Laden still remains at large, Al-Qaeda is operating and the Taliban’s control over Afghanistan is increasing.

According to recent statistics published by the International Council for Security and Development, in 2007 the Taliban controlled 54 percent of Afghanistan. But already in 2008 that percentage grew to 72%.

”The situation has been deteriorating during recent year,” said Aleksandr Pikaev, an expert from the Institute of World Economy and International Relations.

”It is linked to the fact that the NATO-led forces pay very little attention to peace building to provide the Afghan population with necessary means of subsistence other than growing narcotics,” he said.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11986

IIsrael may open Gaza crossings for Schalit release

2009-01-26T17:44:00.000-08:00

This is an undated photo of Gilad Schalit, who was captured by Hamas in a cross-border operation.
Israel is reportedly willing to open Gaza crossings and free 1,000 prisoners for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

Ayman Taha, a Hamas member currently holding truce talks in Cairo, said Monday that Tel Aviv is considering the opening of the Gaza crossings as well as releasing 1,000 prisoners in exchange for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram reported.

According to the report, Taha made the comments after a meeting with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.

A Hamas delegation is currently holding talks in Cairo with Egypt officials over an 18-months Israeli blockade of Gaza, ceasefire and exchange of prisoners with Israel.

An Israeli official was quoted by the Jerusalem Post as saying that Operation Cast Lead on Gaza had "created new understandings between us and Hamas."

Earlier Sunday, Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri said the movement was prepared to reach a one-year truce with Israel if the border crossings into the Gaza Strip are opened. However, Masri said the truce would have nothing to do with Schalit.

"The Israeli soldier is not linked in any way to the issue of the truce or the border crossings," he said. "Rather, the case of the soldier is connected to a future prisoner exchange. No one should dream that Schalit will see his family if the border crossings aren't reopened."

Schalit was captured two years ago in a cross-border operation by Palestinian fighters. Hamas has requested the release of 1,400 Palestinians held in Israeli jails in return for his release.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83748&sectionid=351020202

Israeli Professor - 'We Could Destroy All European Capitals'

2009-01-26T17:39:00.000-08:00

By Nadim Ladki

(IAP News) — An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.

Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."

Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that "collective deportation" was Israel's only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.

"The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent."

Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.

"I think it's quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed."

Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

Creveld argued that Israel wouldn't care much about becoming a rogue state.

"Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under."

http://www.rense.com/general34/esde.htm

Fatah fears Gaza conflict has put Hamas in the ascendancy

2009-01-26T17:33:00.000-08:00

Palestinian party created by Yasser Arafat suffers sharp decline in support

By Patrick Cockburn in Nablus

January 23, 2009 "The Independent" — The Islamic movement Hamas is taking over from Fatah, the party created by Yasser Arafat, as the main Palestinian national organisation as a result of the war in Gaza, says a leading Fatah militant. "We have moved into the era of Hamas which is now much stronger than it was," said Husam Kadr, a veteran Fatah leader in the West Bank city of Nablus, recently released after five-and-a-half years in Israeli prisons.

"Its era started when Israel attacked Gaza on 27 December."

The sharp decline in support for Fatah and the discrediting of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, because of his inertia during the 22-day Gaza war, will make it very difficult for the US and the EU to pretend that Fatah are the true representatives of the Palestinian community. The international community is likely to find it impossible to marginalise Hamas in reconstructing Gaza.

"Hamas has been highly successful in portraying itself as the party of the resistance, and Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as the opponents of resistance at a time when the public wants to resist," said Ghassan Khatib, a former Palestinian minister of planning. He adds that Mr Abbas was badly damaged in the eyes of Palestinians when he blamed Hamas for Israel's assault on Gaza in the conflict's first two days.

Mr Kadr, who says he was tortured by Israeli interrogators during detention, does not welcome Hamas's triumph. But he is convinced that, just as Fatah's long reign was launched by the battle of Karamah in March 1968, when Fatah fighters aided by the Jordanian army, repelled an Israeli attack on their HQ in the Jordan valley, so Hamas will gain from the Gaza war. "The Hamas era comes 40 years after Karamah began the Fatah period," he says.

Hamas is conscious of its political success even if it was able to do little against the Israeli army. Mr Khatib, in his office in Ramallah, the Palestinian capital on the West Bank, says the first priority must be the formation of a Palestinian unity government between Hamas and Fatah. But he adds gloomily that "the chances of this happening are slim" because the Gaza war has exacerbated hatred between the two sides as Fatah supporters are hunted down and sometimes executed in Gaza.

Aside from Gaza there is another reason why President Abbas and Fatah are weak. Long years of negotiations with Israel have achieved nothing while red-roofed Israeli settlements have sprouted on every West Bank hilltop. Driving into Nablus, a city of 250,000 people that was once the bustling heart of the West Bank, the streets are empty and row after row of shops are shut.

"We had eight years of complete closure when people could not get in or out of Nablus aside from the 3 per cent who had permits," complains the city's mayor Adly Yaish. "Most factories shut and 60 per cent of people live below the poverty line." The closure became a little looser three months ago, but yesterday there were long lines of vehicles at the Israeli checkpoints around the city.

The rise of Hamas and the demise of Fatah is best explained by the failure of President Abbas to achieve anything through negotiations for ordinary Palestinians. "We in Fatah have failed to remove a single Israeli checkpoint," admits Mr Kadr. "It takes me as long to reach Ramallah 50 kilometres away as it would to fly from Jordan to Ankara."

He believes the Gaza war has spread the seeds for another Palestinian uprising. "The coming uprising will be very hard for both the Palestinians and the Israelis," he warns, though he does not forecast when it will occur. He points to a television in his office on which a young Palestinian girl called Dalal is shown picking through the ruins of her house in Gaza where all her family had died and only her cat had survived. "Can you imagine how Palestinians feel when they see this?" he asks.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21826.htm

Israel must prepare to turn its military might from Gaza to Iran

2009-01-11T15:38:00.000-08:00

By Amir Oren
Brig. Gen. Sami Turjeman is commander of the 36th Division in the Golan Heights, and is one of the most outstanding officers of his rank in the Israel Defense Forces. He is expected to be promoted this year to the rank of major general. Turjeman was head of the operations division at the General Staff during the tempestuous years of 2006 and 2007 - when the IDF embarked simultaneously on operations in both Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip, in the wake of the abduction of Gilad Shalit, and then attacked the North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria.

A few weeks ago, shortly before he set out for a visit to brigade commander Avi Peled and the Golani and Armored Corps fighters, as they undertook maneuvers not far from his headquarters in the Golan Heights, Turjeman pointed to a corner in his office. He had heard from Avigdor Kahalani, one of his predecessors in the 36th Brigade, that a secret opening to a tunnel that led to a bunker, to which the commander can escape in the event that Syrian tanks surround the command center, was concealed there.

The lines of Syrian armored columns between Damascus and the border have not been at the top of the IDF's list of concerns in recent years, nor has that country's air force. Indeed, in Turjeman's opinion, the Arabs have - in practice although not in theory - very effective air forces. He's thinking not of their airplanes, but rather of the fact that everything that hits Israel from the sky is considered "air force," and involves missile and rocket systems of different types and ranges, which are in the possession of various countries and organizations. Kiryat Shmona, Be'er Sheva, the Israel Air Force bases at Tel Nof, Hatzerim and Hatzor, and other bases and essential installations - all are within the scope of this danger.
Advertisement

It is no wonder the U.S. Army, which has 100 soldiers manning the large radar installation in the Negev meant to detect Iranian missiles, has hastened to assure its troops that they are not at risk.

Facing an "air force of the poor," this week Israel mainly deployed its own splendid IAF. It's an acclaimed force, and rightly so, because in Israel, there is the IDF, and then there is the air force, and they are two organizations of different levels.

The ground forces need many junior officers for a short period, whereas the air force needs junior officers for long periods. The need for the mass production of the first sort - i.e., of platoon commanders - as compared to the qualitative selectiveness used with respect to the second sort - air crews (and naval officers) - is reflected in the difference between the levels of the two organizations. This difference has been exacerbated over the years, because in the IAF the selection process continues with those who hope to climb to command and high command levels. In the ground forces, on the other hand, there is a more arbitrary or random placement for soldiers aged 18 or 19, for example, in the artillery and not in the Paratroops.

Discussions about the "land maneuvers" that are the ground forces' part of the operation in Gaza, are promissory notes still waiting to be cashed.

There cannot be an expanded operation without IAF support, both fire power and reconnaissance, especially while the ground forces have been waiting for conditions that will enable them to enter the Strip.

The IDF of the Second Lebanon War, under the command of Dan Halutz, was not all that bad, and the IDF of today, under the command of Gabi Ashkenazi, is not all that good. It is the same army that was brought out of Lebanon in 2000 by Ehud Barak, when he was prime minister, and by Ashkenazi, when he was GOC Northern Command. Parts of it are disciplined and professional, and parts are in real need of improvement.

As has always been the case with Ashkenazi, the IDF is a pistol that has had a silencer affixed to it. Only the General Staff talks, and it does so in a single voice. The IAF and the Southern Command, which have been doing most of the work, have been forbidden to speak to the media.

During the first days of the current campaign, until the disagreements in the managing quintet of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Barak, Ashkenazi and Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin began to bubble over, the politicians and generals in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were enjoying a popular sense that the operation was not only justified, but also successful. In reality, this was not more true than in the parallel days of July 2006, before the hesitations and the marching in place set in, but the positive atmosphere of this week can be attributed to a combination of changes.

The general impression is that this time the launching of the (Hamas) rockets preceded the (Israeli) aerial action, rather than followed it - even though the Hezbollah attack in the north, when Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were abducted, which is what sparked Israel's offensive, also included a bombardment.

The reserves that have been called up are not intended to participate in the fighting - or to lead the protest once it is over - but rather to reinforce the troops of the standing army who are sent in to fight.

The tone of the media is positive, because the whole element of personal enmity among career army and reserve officers - and the broadcasters close to them - toward Halutz and the commander of the 91st Division, Gal Hirsch, vanished with their retirement. The bad feelings toward Halutz and Hirsch - and of Halutz toward Hirsch - have dissipated along with the entry of the new management, which replaced the commanders in 2006. The IDF, having learned the lessons of the veteran generals in the ground forces who voiced their frustrations publicly, has grown wiser and has recruited them into its service. The TV studios are the same TV studios, and the generals are the same generals, but now they are spokesmen for the establishment, not its critics.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote last month that in Lebanon, Hezbollah won "a propaganda victory" over Israel. Now it appears that it also inflicted a domestic victory within Israel concerning the image of the army. This impression is truly deceptive, just like the originality that is attributed to the name of the operation, "Cast Lead" - a recycled name that is eight and a half years old, which served to describe the events that took place on Nakba Day (the Palestinians' commemoration of what they call the "catastrophe" of the creation of Israel in 1948) in May 2000.

Gaza is a far simpler sector than Lebanon - narrow, short, bounded, flat and exposed - and even though there too explosive charges, anti-tank ambushes and suicide terrorists are waiting, in Golani they are describing it as more of a company-level war game than a brigade maneuver. What they are aspiring to achieve in Gaza is just what was accomplished in Lebanon: a situation where even if Hamas/Hezbollah is left at the end of the fighting with rockets, it won't dare fire them. If no Qassam is launched from Gaza for two and a half years, then they will see this as a major achievement, in the hope that the public that became embittered by the results of the Lebanon war will respond with satisfaction this time.

The austerity of the planners of the current operation suggests that they are aspiring to a certain, realistic degree of success, at the price of a diplomatic defeat: acceptance of Hamas rule in Gaza, both in terms of relinquishing the idea of getting rid of it, and in negotiating with it on an agreement that will lead to the end of the operation, before the price in IDF casualties and to civilian locales inside Israel, on the eve of an election, starts to become too heavy.

Such an outcome, even if it is considered better than the situation that preceded the operation, and is preferable to becoming bogged down in a prolonged stay in the Gaza Strip, will nevertheless be a badge of shame for Israel, until another explanation is needed to explain Israel's ability to make do with the outcome: Iran. Barak and Ashkenazi tried until the past few weeks to avoid the operation in Gaza, for which GOC Southern Command Yoav Gallant had been pushing (with the support of the IAF) for a very long time in order to thwart the strengthening of Hamas before it reaches its peak.

On the 14th story in the IDF headquarters in the Kirya in Tel Aviv, where the defense minister and the chief of staff have their bureaus, there is concern about an even more serious problem than rockets in Ashdod and Be'er Sheva. Barak, especially, has been concerned that the IDF will be drawn into Gaza, even if not in all its brigades and divisions, but certainly with the attention of the commanders and with a burden on the air force.

Therefore, the IDF must move quickly to disengage, in order to free its attention for the paramount task of preparing a military blow to Iran, if diplomacy and deterrence fail. As long as the great threat of Iranian power is hovering, the smaller threats of Hezbollah and Hamas that derive from it will not be dispelled. Cast lead, heavy as it may be, is still easier to digest than enriched uranium.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052025.html

Israel intensifies naval attacks on Gaza

2009-01-11T15:36:00.000-08:00

Israel's naval forces have been firing at residential areas of the western Gaza Strip amid a full-scale incursion against the coastal enclave.

According to local residents, Israeli navy vessels started firing at civilian areas before the end of a daily three-hour lull in the region, Hamas Al-Aqsa TV station reported Sunday.

Tel Aviv repeatedly violates the three-hour ceasefire, which was announced for easing the transportation of humanitarian aid into the besieged enclave.

According to the United Nations agency responsible for Palestine, the temporary lull is not long enough to resume the transport of supplies into the costal sliver, while at the same time Israeli troops open fire on UN-flagged vehicles.

Meanwhile, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the troops advanced into a suburb of the populated Gaza City, killing at least 14 people in and around Sheikh Ajleen, Palestinian medical sources said.

According to witnesses, Hamas resistance fighters also fired anti-tank missiles and mortar shells at Israeli tanks and troops.

The military which intensifies attacks on the region, said its warplanes pounded over 60 targets across the Gaza Strip, including a mosque in the southern Gaza city.

The military also attacked a vehicle in Rafah, wounding at least four civilians.

Israeli Operation Cast Lead which was launched on December 27 has so far claimed at least 888 lives and wounded 3700 people across the region

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=81717&sectionid=351020202

Prince Harry asks pardon for 'Paki' and 'Raghead' slur

2009-01-11T15:34:00.000-08:00

Britain's Prince Harry has issued a public apology for using racist and offensive language to describe members of his army platoon.

Prince Harry has apologized after leaked video footage from 2006 showed him making a racial slur against an army colleague from Pakistan.

Harry made the racial comments in 2006 while filming other cadets sleeping in the departure lounge of an airport terminal waiting to go to Cyprus for training.

The army lieutenant in the Household Cavalry's Blues and Royals labeled one colleague as "our little Paki friend".

Then spotting a cadet wearing a headscarf, Harry said, "you look like a raghead".

St. James's Palace — the office of Harry and his elder brother Prince William — said on Saturday that Harry was sorry for any offense caused by his use of the word "Paki".

"Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely sorry for any offense his words might cause," spokesman Patrick Harrison said in a statement.

Prince Harry is third in line to the British throne and is the younger son of late princess Diana.

NAT/AA

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81664&sectionid=351020601

UK Jews demand Israeli ceasefire

2009-01-11T15:32:00.000-08:00

A number of prominent British Jews have written an open letter calling on the Israeli government to halt its military operations in Gaza immediately.

The letter, published in the Observer, warns the military action, far from improving security, will strengthen extremism and destabilise the region.

The signatories, who declare themselves "passionate supporters of Israel", include several rabbis.

The first major rally in support of Israel in the UK will take place later.

Prominent rabbis, academics and political figures supported the open letter, including Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism; Sir Jeremy Beecham, former chairman of the Labour party; Professor Shalom Lappin of the University of London and Baroness Julia Neuberger.

Pro-Israeli rally

They write: "We look upon the increasing loss of life on both sides of the Gaza conflict with horror.

"We have no doubt that rocket attacks into southern Israel, by Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups, are war crimes against Israel.

"No sovereign state should, or would, tolerate continued attacks and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Israel has warned its may intensify its two-week-old offensive

"Israel had a right to respond and we support the Israeli government's decision to make stopping the rocket attacks an urgent priority.

"However, we believe that now only negotiations can secure long-term security for Israel and the region."

Earlier Jewish officials reacted angrily after a hoax e-mail claimed a rally planned to take place in London on Sunday had been cancelled.

The event at Trafalgar Square is expected to draw thousands of people - it will be the first major rally organised by the Jewish community in the UK over Israel's offensive against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

The e-mail purported to come from the UK's Jewish communal leadership, the Board of Deputies (BoD).

A rally is also being held in Manchester.

'8,000 rockets'

BoD chief executive John Benjamin said despite support for Israel's position, the events are primarily a call for peace.

He said: "Certainly I think the people who will be there will understand that Israel has felt it necessary to take action to stop the many thousands of rockets that have been launched from Gaza in the last several years.

"We're not just talking about the last two weeks but over the course of years I think there have been something like 8,000 rockets.

"So, there is an understanding of that position but it's not a rally that is either commending exactly what's going on on day by day, or even, as British Jews and British Christians and others who are coming together, making a statement about the military action - it's a call for peace."
Pro-Palestinian protesters have already been out in force

On Saturday thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched through London to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

The protest started peacefully but there were confrontations as police tried to move demonstrators away from the gates of the Israeli embassy.

Protests also took place in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Belfast, Newcastle and Southampton.

In Gaza three Palestinians have been killed and dozens more injured by new Israeli tank fire and air strikes, according to medical sources.

Reports of the deaths came hours after Israel dropped leaflets warning Gazans to stay away from areas used by Hamas, saying its operation would escalate.

Some 820 Gazans and 13 Israelis have reportedly died in 14 days of fighting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822656.stm

Rabbi: "Israeli stupidity breaks my heart"

2009-01-11T15:24:00.000-08:00

American Rabbi and political activist, Michael Lerner, says that the Israeli military campaign in Gaza is "understandable, but stupid."

In an article published in The Times, Rabbi Lerner said that a military counterattack is not an acceptable response from the Israeli side, as Hamas can never pose any threat to its existence.

The editor of the progressive Jewish Tikkun magazine said a ceasefire is the only way to end the crisis in Gaza, adding that speaking in an empathic language "toward the suffering of each people in a climate of discourse in which both sides' stories are heard and understood", guarantees the existence of any declared ceasefire.

Rabbi Lerner, who is also the founder of the Beyt Tikkun Synagogue, proposed that the declared ceasefire entail the following clauses:

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine.

1- Hamas should stop the firing of missiles and other violent actions including any cooperation in actively jailing individuals from different factions.

2- Israel should stop bombings, targeted assassinations or other violent actions aiming to kill activists in the West Bank or Gaza.

3- Israel must open the border with Gaza and allow free access to and from the occupied territories. Israel must allow the free travel of food, gas, electricity, water and consumer goods.

4- Israel must release all Palestinians in detention and return them to the West Bank or Gaza. Hamas must release Gilad Schalit and anyone else held by Palestinian forces.

5- Both sides must invite an international force to implement these agreements.

6- Both sides must agree to end teaching and/or advocacy of violence against the other side in and outside educational institutions and the media.

7- This ceasefire would last for 20 years. The NATO, the UN, and the US must all agree to enforce this agreement and impose severe sanctions in the event of any violations.

Rabbi Lerner proposed that as the first step Israel implements a massive Marshall Plan in Gaza and the West Bank with the aim of tackling poverty and unemployment.

Israel would also have to rebuild infrastructure, encourage investment, and dismantle settlements or compel settlers to become citizens of a Palestinian state.

Rabbi Lerner also called on Tel Aviv to allow the return of 30,000 Palestinian refugees and recognize a Palestinian state within borders already defined by the 2003 Geneva Accord.

PKH/HGH

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81611&sectionid=3510203

Bush's $1 Trillion War on Terror: Even Costlier Than Expected

2008-12-27T17:15:00.000-08:00

By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – Fri Dec 26, 4:30 am ET Play Video Terrorism Video: Negative Consequences FOX News Play Video Terrorism Video: Pakistan moves troops toward Indian border AP Play Video Terrorism Video: Safe at Home? FOX News The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.

The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)

These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."

But many Americans may suffer a moment of sticker shock from the conclusions of the CSBA report, and similar assessments from the Government Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service, which make clear that the nearly $1 trillion already spent is only a down payment on the war's long-term costs. The trillion-dollare figure does not, for example, include long-term health care for veterans, thousands of whom have suffered crippling wounds, or the interest payments on the money borrowed by the Federal government to fund the war. The bottom lines of the three assessments vary: The CSBA study says $904 billion has been spent so far, while the GAO says the Pentagon alone has spent $808 billion through last September. The CRS study says the wars have cost $864 billion, but it didn't factor inflation into its calculations.

Sifting through Pentagon data, the CSBA study breaks down the total cost for the war on terror as $687 billion for Iraq, $184 billion for Afghanistan, and $33 billion for homeland security. By 2018, depending on how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost is projected likely to be between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion. On the safe assumption that the wars are being waged with borrowed money, interest payments raise the cost by an additional $600 billion through 2018.

Shortly before the Iraq war began, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey earned a rebuke from within the Administration when he said the war could cost as much as $200 billion. "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that would cost," Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said. "You don't know if it's going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn't going to last two years."

According to the CSBA study, the Administration has fudged the war's true costs in two ways: Borrowing money to fund the wars is one way of conducting it on the cheap, at least in the short term. But just as pernicious has been the Administration's novel way of budgeting for them. Previous wars were funded through the annual appropriations process, with emergency spending - which gets far less congressional scrutiny - only used for the initial stages of a conflict. But the Bush Administration relied on such supplemental appropriations to fund the wars until 2008, seven years after invading Afghanistan and five years after storming Iraq.

"For these wars we have relied on supplemental appropriations for far longer than in the case of past conflicts," says Steven Kosiak of the CSBA, one of Washington's top defense-budget analysts. "Likewise, we have relied on borrowing to cover more of these costs than we have in earlier wars - which will likely increase the ultimate price we have to pay." That refusal to spell out the full cost can lead to unwise spending increases elsewhere in the federal budget or unwarranted tax cuts. "A sound budgeting process forces policymakers to recognize the true costs of their policy choices," Kosiak adds. "Not only did we not raise taxes, we cut taxes and significantly expanded spending."

The bottom line: Bush's projections of future defense spending "substantially understate" just how much money it will take to run Obama's Pentagon, Kosiak says in his report. Luckily, Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to hang around to try to iron out the problem

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081226/us_time/08599186836700

Breaking: CIA Sabotage may be to blame for failed Bulava Test

2008-12-27T17:13:00.000-08:00

MOSCOW, December 25 (RIA Novosti) - The chief of the Russian General Staff said Thursday that production flaws could be to blame for Tuesday's unsuccessful test launch of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile.

"Either the military-industrial complex or production itself or design shortcomings could be to blame for the failure," General of the Army Nikolai Makarov said.

Makarov said the Defense Ministry would thoroughly investigate the reasons for the failure.

The submerged launch of the Bulava ICBM took place from the Dmitry Donskoi strategic nuclear-powered submarine in the White Sea, off Russia's northwest coast, targeting the Kura firing ground in Kamchatka, the Far East.

"The launch was a failure," an official at the Belomorsk naval base said. "The crew performed well. The missile left the tube, but went off course due to a malfunction after the first stage separation."

A Navy commission will investigate the cause of the unsuccessful launch, Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo, a Navy spokesman, said earlier.

The latest test launch was Bulava's 10th and the fifth failure.

The previous test of the Bulava missile took place on November 28. It was launched from the Dmitry Donskoi submarine in the White Sea, effectively engaging its designated target on the Kamchatka Peninsula about 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) east of Moscow.

Russia earlier planned for the Bulava to enter service with the Navy in 2009. But a senior Russian Navy official said earlier this month that several more test launches would be conducted next year before a final decision to adopt it for service was made.

The Bulava (SS-NX-30), carrying up to 10 nuclear warheads and having a range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles), is designed for deployment on Borey-class Project 955 nuclear-powered submarines.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin earlier said the missile would be a key component of Russia's nuclear forces.

some of earlier sabotages are listed below :

CHERNOBYL catastrophe was not an accident!

21/10/2003

There is yet another opinion on the Chernobyl catastrophe. Some people say it was not an accident. Different facts and evidence show it was a full scale sabotage against the former USSR, which resulted in collapse of the world superpower.

"The Chernobyl power plant was blown up by a foreign agent! Department of Nuclear Energy, Science Academy with its research and design institutes were not ready for such an unexpected disaster. Chernobyl nuclear holocaust was not an accident. Nuclear reactors have high level of reliability proved by a number of tests. Water pumps of primary and back up cooling systems could not have been simultaneously disabled. The picture of blown up reactor was taken too opportunely by the U.S. satellite that was "accidentally" on the proper orbit above the 4th block at that very time. Logically analyzed facts and developments of "cold war" in 50th show Chernobyl catastrophe was not an accident. That was a full scale sabotage of the century, which resulted in breakdown of the USSR economic basis and "soviet" socialist system in general. The adversaries of the USSR made an effective use of the negligence and incompetence of the government headed by Gorbachev along with the lack of sufficient control of restricted areas."

V. Baranov,
Former Chief Of Staff Deputy For Special Zone Forces
in Chernobyl nuclear power plant area retired colonel

How USA uses SABOTAGE To Wreck Soviet Economy -
By David Hoffman
Washington
February 28, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676960916.html

In 1982, US president Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the Soviet Union's economy
through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later
triggered a huge explosion in a gas pipeline, according to a former White House official.

Thomas Reed, a former Air Force secretary and member of the National Security Council, describes
the episode in a book, At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War, to be published next
month.

U.S. Working To Sabotage Iran Nuke Program.

May 23, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/eveningnews/main2843582.shtml

CBS News has learned that Iran is continuing to make progress on its expanded efforts to enrich uranium — in spite of covert efforts by U.S. and other allied intelligence agencies to actively sabotage the country's nuclear program.

"Industrial sabotage is a way to stop the program, without military action, without fingerprints on the operation, and really, it is ideal, if it works," says Mark Fitzpatrick, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation and now Senior Fellow in Non-Proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

More than 200 dead as Israel hammers Hamas-run Gaza

2008-12-27T16:48:00.000-08:00

GAZA CITY (AFP) – Israel hammered Hamas targets in Gaza on Saturday, killing at least 205 people in retaliation for ongoing rocket fire in one of the bloodiest days of the decades-long Middle East conflict.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said "Operation Cast Lead," which has also left some 300 wounded, would continue "as long as necessary."

"The battle will be long and difficult, but the time has come to act and to fight," he said.

Following the mid-morning wave of attacks, which saw some 60 aircraft bomb the impoverished, overcrowded territory, Hamas swiftly responded by firing several dozen rockets into the Jewish state, killing one Israeli.

The Islamist movement, which seized control of Gaza from forces loyal to moderate Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas last year, warned Israelis living near Gaza to "prepare the funeral shrouds."

Air strikes continued sporadically throughout the day and into the evening, with no immediate reports of casualties.

The Palestinian leadership slammed the "massacre," and the European Union, Russia, Britain and France urged both sides to stop the violence .

The United States said Israel should avoid civilian casualties, while the Arab League and several Middle Eastern states slammed Israel for the strikes.

In Gaza, thick clouds of smoke billowed into the sky. Mangled, bloodied and often charred corpses littered the pavement around Hamas security compounds, and frantic relatives flooded hospitals.

Ambulances and private cars rushed the wounded and dead to Al-Shifa hospital, where staff used sheets as makeshift stretchers for some.

There was no space left in the morgue and bodies were piled up in the emergency room and in the corridors, as many of the wounded screamed in pain.

"My brother was still alive when he arrived here, and was talking to me but no one could help him. He died," said Ahmed al-Gharabli, his voice shaking and tears streaming down his cheeks. His brother Baha was a policeman.

Medics said civilians had been hit, but the majority of the victims appeared to be members of Hamas, branded a terror group by Israel and the West.

At least 205 Palestinians were killed and some 300 others wounded, said Dr Moawiya Hassanein, the head of Gaza emergency services.

The bombardment — which marked one of the bloodiest single days in the 60-year Israeli-Palestinian conflict — came after days of spiralling violence, with militants firing rockets and Israel vowing a fiery response.

Abbas told AFP from Saudi Arabia that he was in "urgent contact" with numerous countries to stop "the cowardly aggressions and massacres in the Gaza Strip."

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who brokered a six-month Israeli-Hamas truce that expired on December 19, slammed the "Israeli military aggression on the Gaza Strip and blames Israel, as an occupying force, for the victims and the wounded."

He ordered the Rafah crossing — the only one that bypasses Israel — to be opened to allow the evacuation of the wounded, dozens of whom had passed through by mid-afternoon, state news agency Mena reported.

Hamas militants warned Israelis living near the border to "prepare the funeral shrouds," vowing that the Islamists' response "was on its way."

One rocket hit the southern Israeli town of Netivot, killing a man and wounding four other people, Israeli medics said.

The air strikes come less than two months ahead of Israeli elections on February 10.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the head of the governing Kadima party and one of the front-runners for the premier's chair, said that "today there is no other option than a military operation."

"We need to protect our citizens from attack through a military response against the terror infrastructure in Gaza."

Violence in and around Gaza has flared since the truce ended, with militants firing rockets and Israel warning it would respond.

It escalated dramatically on Wednesday, when militants fired more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds in response to a deadly air strike on Gaza.

Hamas said bombs destroyed its security structures across Gaza and killed three senior officials — the Gaza police chief, the police commander for central Gaza and the head of the group's bodyguard unit.

The bombardment set off angry demonstrations in Israel's Arab towns and in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Israel had responded to earlier attacks by tightening the blockade it imposed after Hamas seized Gaza from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2007. But dozens of truckloads of supplies were delivered to Gaza on Friday after Israel decided to temporarily allow in humanitarian aid.

Hamas is sworn to destruction of the Jewish state and has warned that it would retaliate to a major Gaza operation by resuming suicide bombings inside Israel. The last such attack claimed by Hamas was in January 2005.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081227/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgaza_081227163842

Viagra Used to Entice Afghan Warlords

2008-12-27T16:46:00.000-08:00

A CIA officer gave an Afghan chieftain Viagra in an attempt to obtain information about Taliban movements.

The bearded Afghan, looking to be in his late 60s, returned enthusiastically with information and asking for more pills, after receiving the four blue Viagra pills from a CIA officer earlier.

According to officials involved in Afghanistan, this is how some battles are won, through novel incentives and creative bargaining in some of the country's roughest neighborhoods.

The officials say that to win over notoriously fickle warlords and chieftains, the agency's operatives have used a variety of personal touches. These include pocket knives and tools, medicine or surgeries for ailing family members, toys and school equipment, tooth extractions, travel visas and, occasionally, pharmaceutical enhancements for aging patriarchs with slumping libidos.

"Whatever it takes to make friends and influence people – whether it's building a school or handing out Viagra," said one longtime agency operative and veteran of several Afghanistan tours. Like other field officers interviewed for the story, he spoke on condition of anonymity when describing tactics and operations.

These inducements are necessary in Afghanistan, where warlords and tribal leaders expect to be paid for their cooperation, and where, for some, switching sides can be easy as changing tunics, according to officials. If the Americans do not offer incentives, there are others who will, including Taliban commanders, drug dealers and Iranian agents.

Cash and weapons are the usual bribes of choice, but are not always the best options, Afghanistan veterans say. Guns often fall into the wrong hands, and showy gifts such as money, jewelry and cars tend to draw unwanted attention.

"If you give an asset $1,000, he'll go out and buy the shiniest junk he can find, and it will be apparent that he has suddenly come into a lot of money from someone," said Jamie Smith, a veteran of CIA covert operations in Afghanistan and now chief executive officer of SCG International, a private security and intelligence company . "Even if he doesn't get killed, he becomes ineffective as an informant because everyone knows where he got it."

Smith said, that the key is to meet the informant's personal needs in a way that keeps him firmly on your side but leaves little trace.

"You're trying to bridge a gap between people living in the 18th century and people coming in from the 21st century," he said, "so you look for those common things in the form of material aid that motivate people everywhere."

There is a long tradition of using sex as a motivator among the world's intelligence agency. A retired CIA officer and author of several books on Intelligence, Robert Baer, noted that the Soviet spy service was notorious for using attractive women as bait when seeking to turn foreign diplomats into informants.

"The KGB has always used 'honey traps,' and it works," Mr. Baer said.

He said that for American officers, a more common practice was to offer medical care for potential informants and their loved ones. Some U.S. operatives in Afghanistan said, Western drugs such as Viagra are just one of the long list of enticements available for use in special cases. Veteran officers familiar with such practices said Viagra is offered rarely, and only to older tribal officials to whom the drug would hold special appeal.

While these drugs are generally unavailable in the remote areas where the agency's team have operated, they have been sold in Kabul street markets since 2003, and are known by reputation in other places.

"You didn't hand it out to younger guys, but it could be a silver bullet to make connections to the older ones," said one retired operative familiar with the drug's use in Afghanistan. Afghan tribal leaders often have four wives – the maximum number allowed by the Quran – and some village patriarchs are easily sold on the pill.

Not everyone in Afghanistan's hinterlands has heard of the drug, making it awkward when Americans try to explain its effects.

This was the case with the 60-year-old chieftain who received the four pills from a U.S. operative. The operative, now retired, said he talked to the clan leader for a long time through an interpreter, finding ways to secure loyalty.

A conversation of the man's family and wives provided inspiration. Once it was established that the man was in good health, the pills were offered and accepted.

When the Americans returned four days later, the gift had worked its magic, the operative said.

"He came up to us beaming," the official said. "He said, 'You are a great man.' "

"And after that we could do whatever we wanted in his area."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1615693/viagra_used_to_entice_afghan_warlords/index.html?source=r_health

Amid wide Taliban rule, a NATO supply line in Pakistan is clogged

2008-12-27T16:27:00.000-08:00

By Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Pir Zubair Shah Published: December 25, 2008
PESHAWAR, Pakistan: This frontier metropolis boasts a major air station and Pakistani Army and paramilitary unit garrisons. But the 200 Taliban insurgents were in no rush as they methodically plundered a North Atlantic Treaty Organization supply terminus here two weeks ago.

The militants began by blocking off a long stretch of the main road, giving them plenty of time to burn everything inside, said one guard, Haroon Khan, who was standing next to a row of charred trucks.

After ascertaining the overmatched bodyguards they wouldn't be popped — if they consorted never to work there again — the militants screamed "God is great" through bullhorns. They then seized jerrycans and made numerous trips to a nearby filling station for fuel, which they dumped on the freight trucks and Humvees before setting them afire.

The assault furnished the up-to-date evidence of how extensively militants now rule the vital region east of the Khyber Pass, the narrow cut across the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that's been a strategic trade and military gateway since the time of Alexander the Great.

The area encompasses what is officially known as the Khyber Agency, which is adjacent to Peshawar and is one of a handful of lawless tribal districts on the border. But security in Khyber has deteriorated further in recent months with the emergence of a brash young Taliban commander who calls news conferences to thumb his nose at NATO forces, as well as with public fury over deadly missile attacks by American remotely piloted aircraft.

In hard times, flow of money from migrant workers stallsAmid wide Taliban rule, a NATO supply line in Pakistan is chokedA foreign face beloved by Afghans from all sidesKhyber's downward spiral is jeopardizing NATO's most important supply line, sending American military officials scrambling to find alternative routes into Afghanistan through Russia and Central Asia. Three-quarters of troop supplies enter from Pakistan, most of the goods ferried from Karachi to Peshawar and then 40 miles west through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan.

A half-dozen raids on NATO supply terminals here have already destroyed 300 cargo trucks and Humvees this month. American officials insist that troop provisions have not suffered, but with predictions that the American deployment in Afghanistan could double next year to 60,000 soldiers, the pressure to secure safer transportation is even more intense.

For NATO the most serious problem is not even the terminals in Peshawar but the safety of the road that winds west to the 3,500-foot Khyber Pass. The route used to be relatively secure: Afridi tribesman were paid by the government to safeguard it, and they were subject to severe penalties and collective tribal punishment for crimes against travelers.

But now the road is a death trap, truckers and some security officials say, with routine attacks like one on Sunday that burned a fuel tanker and another last Friday that killed three drivers returning from Afghanistan.

"The road is so unsafe that even the locals are reluctant to go back to their villages from Peshawar," said Gul Naseem, who lives in Landi Kotal, a town near the border.

The largest truckers' association here has gone on strike to protest the lack of security, saying that the job action has sidelined 60 percent of the trucks that normally haul military goods. An American official denied that the drop-off had been that severe.

"Not a single day passes when something doesn't happen," said Shakir Afridi, leader of the truckers' group, the Khyber Transport Association. He said at least 25 trucks and six oil tankers had been destroyed this month. "Attacks have become a daily affair," he said.

There are new efforts to deter Taliban raids, including convoy escorts by a Pakistani paramilitary group, the Frontier Corps. But now militants are attacking empty — and unguarded — trucks returning to Pakistan. The road from Peshawar to the border has become far more perilous than the route on the other side in Afghanistan, truckers say.

"Our lives are in danger and nobody cares," said Shah Mahmood Afridi, a driver who was in the returning convoy attacked on Friday. "They fired at the trucks and killed three men inside. There is no security provided when we are empty."

Escalating violence on the Khyber road has paralleled the rise of Hakimullah Mehsud, a young Taliban commander and lieutenant of Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the main Pakistani Taliban faction.

Earlier this year, Hakimullah Mehsud's forces took control of Orakzai Agency and instituted the strict Islamic laws known as Shariah. At a news conference there one month ago, Mehsud declared his intention to intensify attacks on NATO supply convoys. Some security officials say they believe that he was behind the assassination in August of a rival militant leader, Hajji Namdar, in Khyber.

At the same time, another powerful Khyber warlord, Mangal Bagh, who officials say has not been attacking the convoys, has seen his influence shrink somewhat, easing the path for Mehsud's authority to expand inside Khyber. "I have no love for Mangal Bagh, but the fact remains that Mangal Bagh does not do these attacks," said Tariq Hayat, the Khyber political agent, the top government official in the region.

Increased missile attacks by American remotely piloted aircraft — like one that killed seven people in the South Waziristan Agency on Monday — have enraged residents in Khyber and other tribal areas near the border, increasing sympathy for attacks on convoys. Afridi, of the truckers' association, condemns the strikes and blames them for increased assaults on his drivers. "We are a tribal people, and if the Americans hit innocent people in Waziristan, we also feel the pain," he said.

Raising the prospect of an even wider threat to the convoys, an influential Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, staged a rally last week in Peshawar, turning out thousands to condemn the missile strikes. The marchers demanded that Pakistan end the NATO convoys, and they vowed to cut the supply lines themselves.

Taliban militants have also moved into Khyber after Pakistani military campaigns in nearby areas like Bajaur Agency. Their migration is reminiscent of a tactic that bedeviled the American military in Iraq for years — dubbed "whack a mole" by combat officers — in which guerrillas eluded large American combat operations and moved to take up positions in areas with understaffed troop contingents.

All those factors have been amplified, in the view of some officials, by the torpor of the Pakistani government. Mahmood Shah, a retired Pakistani Army brigadier who until 2006 was in charge of security in the western tribal regions, said the government had the manpower to drive militants out of Khyber but had mounted only a weak response.

He recounted a recent conversation with a senior Pakistani government official. "You have the chance to wake up," he said he told the official. "But if you don't wake up now, there is a good chance you won't wake up at all."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/25/asia/25khyber.php?page=2

Pakistan: We're ready for war with India

2008-12-11T17:45:00.000-08:00

Pakistan warned it is ready for war with India if it is attacked following the strike by the Mumbai terrorists.

A peace vigil in honour of those who died in the Mumbai attacks is held in the Indian city of Bhopal Photo: Reuters
The remarks by Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who also insisted he would not hand over any suspects in the Mumbai attacks, come amid mounting tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

India has said it is keeping all options open following last month's carnage by the Mumbai terrorists, who killed more than 170 people.

"We do not want to impose war, but we are fully prepared in case war is imposed on us," said Mr Qureshi.

"We are not oblivious to our responsibilities to defend our homeland. But it is our desire that there should be no war."

Indian officials say the hardline Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group, which is based in Pakistan despite being banned by the government, is behind the bloodshed, and Indian media have suggested there could be Indian strikes on militant camps.

Mr Qureshi said he was sending "a very clear message" that his country did not want conflict with India.

"We want friendship, we want peace and we want stability - but our desire for peace should not be considered Pakistan's weakness."

The minister also said that India's demands for the extradition of suspects in the Mumbai attacks were out of the question and that Pakistan, which has arrested 16 people since Saturday, would keep them on home soil.

"The arrests are being made for our own investigations. Even if allegations are proved against any suspect, he will not be handed over to India," Qureshi said. "We will proceed against those arrested under Pakistani laws."

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from Britain and nearly came to a fourth in 2001 after an attack on the Indian parliament that was blamed on LeT.

Under international pressure to act, Pakistan raided a camp run by a charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, that many believe has close links to LeT, and arrested 15 people.

The authorities are questioning Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, who was among those arrested at the weekend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3688288/Pakistan-Were-ready-for-war-with-India.html

Australian SAS Units Function as Death Squads in Afghanistan

2008-12-11T17:43:00.000-08:00

By James Cogan
December 11, 20008 "WSWS" --- An Australian Defence Department (ADD) report published in October, and highlighted on November 26 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Lateline" program, provides a rare account of the shameful operations being performed by the Australian military as part of the US-led occupation of Afghanistan.

The units most involved are from the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) and the Fourth Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (4RAR), the Army's designated commando battalion. These are highly trained troops and their ostensible role in times of war is to carry out long range reconnaissance, surveillance, harassment or raids on enemy targets. In the so-called "war on terror", they are being used as little more than death squads.

The ADD report presents the findings of an inquiry into a September 17 Australian operation that resulted in the mistaken killing of Rozi Khan, the pro-occupation governor of Chora district in Uruzgan province and a long-time colleague of Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The intended target, codenamed "Musket" by the Australian military, was an alleged member of the Islamist Taliban movement. While much of the mission statement remains censored, it is apparent that a squad was sent out to storm into the man's house in the dead of night and execute him in cold blood.

The possibility for things to go wrong is inherent in such operations in civilian areas, and on September 17, they went terribly wrong. Just days before the hit on "Musket" was ordered, the Taliban had issued threats against residents of a village, which lay on the route being taking by the Australians. Rozi Khan had encouraged the villagers to resist any attack and promised to come to their aid with his armed followers.

As the Australian troops moved close to the village, sentries atop houses spotted them and assumed they were Taliban intruders. Within minutes, dozens of villagers were firing on the Australians from the east, west and north. Khan and his men, alerted by the gunfire, began moving toward the fighting, as did local Afghan police.

Troops in an Australian back-up unit, who had manoeuvred to try and flank what they believed to be Taliban, engaged Khan's group and, the inquiry found, most likely inflicted fatal wounds on the district governor. It was not until a police vehicle arrived that the Australians made efforts to communicate with the men they were attacking.

After realising their mistake, the Australian troops aborted their "Musket" mission—at the cost of two dead and five wounded Afghans. The Defence Department inquiry ruled: "That Rozi Khan was among the casualties is resultant of his unfortunate intervention into a complex situation, albeit with altruistic motives."

The September 17 mission was no isolated incident. It was part of a broader and ongoing operation codenamed "Peeler" that tasks the Australian special forces with "disrupting i.e., killing or capturing Taliban leadership or improvised explosive device facilitators".

Not all missions result in the target's assassination. Last month, the alleged Taliban "shadow" governor of Uruzgan, Mullah Bari Ghul, was detained in a raid that was most likely conducted by Australians.

Other missions result in massacres. On November 23, 2007, Private Luke Worsley of 4RAR was killed during an assault on a residence in Chenartu village in Uruzgan. Because of the Australian fatality, details of the incident were made public. The target was Taliban leader Mullah Baz Mohammed, who was expected to be at the house that night.

Australian troops crept up under the cover of darkness, blew the outer doors off the housing compound and rushed in. They left the Daad family—three men, two women and one female child—dead on the floor. A neighbour, Faiz Mohammed, told Time magazine: "There was blood everywhere." Worsley was shot as he entered the house. Mullah Baz Mohammed was not there.

"Lateline" commented that the Defence Department report "prompts questions about the legality and the ethics of targeted killings, even in the dusty and chaotic battleground of Afghanistan".

Tim McCormack of Melbourne University, a professor of Humanitarian Law consulted by the program, provided reassurances. "International law is not pacifist law," he said. "It does allow the killing of enemy combatants and civilians who take a direct part in hostilities—just as it's also legal for the Taliban to hunt down an Australian SAS person or anybody on the Australian side or any of the allied side".

McCormack's remarks, however, serve only to obscure the essential issues. They ignore the thoroughly predatory and, therefore, criminal motives behind the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. The September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were utilised as the pretext to deploy military forces into the desperately impoverished country with the aim of securing long term bases in the very heart of Central Asia, a region rich in untapped resources. Over the past seven years, the Afghan war has evolved into a component of the struggle for regional dominance between the US—supported at present by its European NATO allies—and Russia and China.

The existence of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the decision to send in troops. Not only did the Bush administration reject offers by the Taliban to hand Osama bin Laden over to a third country if evidence were presented of his involvement in 9/11, but virtually no steps were taken by the US military to prevent the bulk of Al Qaeda simply moving across the border into Pakistan's tribal agencies—where it has largely operated ever since.

Australia's involvement in the war was the result of the most cynical calculations. By sending troops to fight in Afghanistan and then Iraq, the former Howard government hoped to cement Washington's backing for a series of military operations that would secure Australian strategic and economic interests in the South Pacific, as well as a free trade agreement with the United States. The Rudd Labor government is continuing the same policy.

There is a stark difference—both politically and morally—between the activities of citizens resisting the invasion of their country and those of the invading army. Afghans are fighting for the right to determine their own future free from foreign domination. The Australian military in Afghanistan is an instrument of imperialist aggression. It is conducting a campaign of terror throughout Uruzgan province to force the population to accept a US puppet government.

One obvious parallel to the Afghanistan operation is the Vietnam War's Operation Phoenix. Over a five-year period, American and South Vietnamese death squads assassinated tens of thousands of Vietnamese on the grounds they were supporting the Viet Cong (VC) liberation movement. Only the most craven apologist for US imperialism would claim that such atrocities were "legal" on the basis that many of the victims belonged to the VC.

The Labor government repeatedly tries to ennoble the Afghan war with flowery descriptions of Australian soldiers as "heroes" who are "putting their lives on the line for the rest us". The truth is they are killing and maiming people, including entirely innocent civilians, of an oppressed country for a thoroughly reactionary, neo-colonial cause.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21430.htm