Killer Teams
2009/09/14
Diplomatic Initiatives
Applying massive pressure, the German government has been able to largely suppress the strong international criticism of the Kunduz Massacre. German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned last Tuesday in front of Parliament that she "will not tolerate a rush to judgment from anyone, whether inside the country or abroad."[1] The Foreign Ministry took diplomatic steps to quell criticisms in various EU and NATO countries.[2] The ambassador of Luxemburg, whose foreign minister had decisively protested the aerial attack [3] was summoned to the Parliamentary States Secretary in the Defense Ministry. Soon thereafter, Luxemburg's Foreign Minister apologized on the state controlled Deutschlandradio. He said that he "had reacted less as a politician, than as a human being" and apologized. He had certainly not wanted to "single out Germany," on the contrary; he has "a great deal of respect for the all of the military" in Afghanistan, particularly "the German military."[4] German pressure has greatly angered foreign diplomats. In the Quai d'Orsay the question was heard: "what are you supposed to say when you are told of such a raid with 80 casualties including civilians? Nothing?"[5]
No Complaints
German media are reporting on approval of the massacre also in Afghanistan. "The Germans have the full support of the population" declared the governor of Kunduz Province. "We have not received any complaints about civilian victims."[6] The leader of the Afghan investigation committee is being quoted with similar surprising allegations. "The responsibility for killing the civilians lies solely with Mullah Abdurrahman (a leader of the insurgents, gfp) and not with the coalition forces" the man, who is the head of the criminal police in Kabul, is said to have declared. "The bombing was legitimate in our eyes."[7] Using similar terms, another member of the investigation committee expressed his sympathy for the bombing on the weekend. The committee has admitted the deaths of at least 30 civilians in the course of the massacre. But regardless of the avowals of Berlin's Afghan governors, exposing the humanitarian standards of the occupation, this massacre could become a subject of investigation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Thursday, the ICC initiated the first preliminary investigations into suspected war crimes committed by insurgents and NATO, on the issues of torture and so-called collateral damage.
Controversially Discussed
While the German government is seeking, at any costs, to hold together the home front and the western war alliance, tensions are growing inside the Berlin establishment. This has been caused by discussions in the USA on a withdrawal in the foreseeable future, prompted by the dramatic decrease in popular support for the war. Several NATO member states are hoping to see "an end to the ISAF mission within the next two years" reported a government advisor at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). An SWP associate's press article expressed that it is "not only allowed, it is even imperative" that the mission be "controversially discussed" in the parliament - even "the question of terminating the ISAF mission."[8] Last weekend, the Foreign Minister went public with concrete proposals, according to which the first Bundeswehr bases in Afghanistan should be evacuated in 2011.
Take Out the Bad Guys
Alternatives to both a continued occupation of Afghanistan as well as a complete withdrawal are being discussed in the United States. According to a recent article in one of the country's leading newspapers, one should "only do what can be done from offshore, using intelligence drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units" - continually making fierce incursions into Afghanistan without being durably stationed in the country and therefore without losses.[9] This concept is now being supported by high ranking members of the military. The former Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Charles Krulak, is advocating the creation of "hunter-killer teams" along the Afghan border. "These hunter-killer teams should be given minimal rules of engagement" explains Krulak and demands that "when they identify the bad guys, they need to be empowered to take them out."[10]
Make Ungovernable
Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, of the US Army, formulated the basic concept even more clearly. A few years ago Peters wrote in the US military journal Joint Force Quarterly that the nations of the Middle East should be broken up and have the borders redrawn along ethnic affinities and religious communal lines. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[11]) In the current issue of the journal, he advocates adapting the current strategy used by the Afghan insurgents - simply making the country ungovernable. The West could completely withdraw its troops, writes Peters, it would only have to continue striking the enemy and supporting the anti-Taliban Afghan factions to keep Afghanistan in a permanent chaos. "Allow Afghanistan to further disintegrate if that is its fate" concludes this officer, whose strategy is also being thoroughly discussed in German military circles. "Chart the Enemy. Our focus should be exclusively on his destruction."[12]
[1] Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel zu den aktuellen Ereignissen in Afghanistan; www.bundesregierung.de 08.09.2009
[2] Berlin sendet Protestnoten an Nato-Partner; Financial Times Deutschland 11.09.2009
[3] see also Die Bomben von Kunduz
[4] "Wir müssen mit äußerster Vorsicht vorgehen"; Deutschlandfunk 10.09.2009
[5] Berlin sendet Protestnoten an Nato-Partner; Financial Times Deutschland 11.09.2009
[6] Afghanischer Gouverneur lobt Bundeswehr; Spiegel Online 07.09.2009
[7] "Die Bombardierung war legitim"; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 09.09.2009
[8] Markus Kaim (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik): Kein sauberer Krieg; Handelsblatt 08.09.2009
[9] Time to Get Out of Afghanistan; The Washington Post 01.09.2009
[10] E-Mail von Charles Krulak vom 01.09.2009; smallwarsjournal.com/documents/krulakwill.pdf
[11] see also A Dirty Little Secret (Make sure you read this too-see below)
[12] Ralph Peters: Trapping Ourselves in Afghanistan and Losing Focus on the Essential Mission; Joint Force Quarterly 3/2009
[2] Berlin sendet Protestnoten an Nato-Partner; Financial Times Deutschland 11.09.2009
[3] see also Die Bomben von Kunduz
[4] "Wir müssen mit äußerster Vorsicht vorgehen"; Deutschlandfunk 10.09.2009
[5] Berlin sendet Protestnoten an Nato-Partner; Financial Times Deutschland 11.09.2009
[6] Afghanischer Gouverneur lobt Bundeswehr; Spiegel Online 07.09.2009
[7] "Die Bombardierung war legitim"; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 09.09.2009
[8] Markus Kaim (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik): Kein sauberer Krieg; Handelsblatt 08.09.2009
[9] Time to Get Out of Afghanistan; The Washington Post 01.09.2009
[10] E-Mail von Charles Krulak vom 01.09.2009; smallwarsjournal.com/documents/krulakwill.pdf
[11] see also A Dirty Little Secret (Make sure you read this too-see below)
[12] Ralph Peters: Trapping Ourselves in Afghanistan and Losing Focus on the Essential Mission; Joint Force Quarterly 3/2009
A Dirty Little Secret
2006/09/08
Recommendations for a complete overthrow of the prevailing state order were published in the "Armed Forces journal" (AFJ, June 2006) a magazine of the "Army Times Publishing Company". This enterprise publishes at least ten military magazines (including "Army Times" and "Navy Times") and is owned by the Gannett Media Group (Virginia, USA). In a self-portrait, the operational income of the group, to which the well-known daily, "USA Today" is also affiliated, figured at US $7.6 billion in 2005.[1]
Experience
Under the title "Redrawing the Middle East Map" the "Armed Forces Journal" shows its readers two maps with identical territorial outlines, with one ("before") showing the current border situation to then develop the future ("after") image of the Middle East. According to the accompanying article, the Muslim world is in a situation generating hatred and violence, in part as a consequence of its colonial heritage and partially due to its own fault, which can only be corrected with radical border alterations. The redrawing of the boundaries would have to follow ethnic affinities and religious communalism, writes the author Ralph Peters, a retired military officer.[2] Peters makes no secret of the fact that he has experience in the field of intelligence.[3] According to information gleaned by german-foreign-policy.com, Peters last visited Baghdad in the spring of 2006.
Unearned
The cartography published under Peters' name, recommends the break-up of the current Saudi Arabia, which must accept the largest loss of territory. This radical transformation is explained with the political situation of the Saudi rulers, who are not only "one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes" [4] - but also that their "vast oil wealth" is completely "unearned." To obtain "true justice", according to the "Armed Forces Journal," the oil fields today on the southwest Saudi coast, must be assigned to Yemen. But not just Saudi control over resources, Riyadh's religious influence over the holy sites (Mekka and Medina) is also to be weakened. Therefore, what had been the prophet Mohammed's area of activity are to be administered by an "Islamic Sacred State," which will have an enormous territory, but no continuous central government - since it will be ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements.
Pro-Western
The US military author offers the Kurdish separatists of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran a hundred percent territorial surplus. These states will lose substantial chunks of territory to the chimera, "Free Kurdistan", whose founding can no longer be postponed. "A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir (Turkey) through Tabriz (Iran), would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan," are the benevolent motives behind the territorial amputation of several UN member states as described in the "Armed Forces Journal".
Wrest
In order to wrest control over the Persian Gulf and its wealth in oil from Iran, the entire coastal flank of the country would go to a not yet founded partial state of the former Iraq. In this way, both opponents to the presumption of western rule, will be deprived of the material basis of their autonomy, around which, they must compete against each other. Whereas Iraq will have ceased to exist, Iran would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and another chimera (a "Free Baluchistan"), but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan.
New perspectives
As the French historian, Pierre Hillard, judges, this ethnicist aggression, carried out by western powers, is being decisively promoted through the foreign policy of Germany. Hillard refers to continuous efforts by German front organizations, seeking to "remodel the Middle East," [5] and in this connection, mentions specifically the activities of the Bertelsmann Foundation. The foundation annually organizes forums ("Kronberg Talks") on the Middle East, where discussions center around a "complete transformation of the political, economic and religious Institutions" of the Muslim resource states - with the objective of "coupling them to the Euro-Atlantic axis," Hillard explained in an interview with german-foreign-policy.com. As is recorded in the minutes of this year's "Kronberg Talks" [6], the "progressive increase of European presence in the region" should be combined "with American assertiveness." This reference links diplomatic and subversive measures ("minority rights") to war threats. At one of the previous Bertelsmann's forums, it had been demanded that the "regional administrative and natural borders lose their significance as quickly as possible, so that new perspectives can be opened".[7]
Unnaturally
The reapportionment of entire state systems is not unknown to Bertelsmann. Thus, on the eve of the (1999) aggression against Yugoslavia, the foundation recommended "the ethnic principle" [8] and the mobilization of ethnic groups against Belgrade - genetically defined minorities with claims to territorial rights. Bertelsmann, in 1996, likewise proposed an ethnic partition plan for Hungary, Romania, Russia and the northern Caucasus.[9] Similar to the propositions contained in the "Armed Forces Journal" several UN member states are being threatened with the loss of their existence, as nation-states. The author at Bertelsmann bases himself on the allegedly "unnatural" drawing of the borders and stakes claims to bogus tribal rights of ethnic communities.
Works
The ethnicist aggression in German political policies can be traced back to Bismarck. Whereas theoreticians, at that time, postulated the constant "flowing" of national borders, to follow the biological course of tribal and "ethnic groups", today, the "Armed Forces Journal" claims that "borders have never been static".[10] Because of "unnatural" territorial demarcation, borders "especially now" are changing their contours, writes the American military author: "from the Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus". Concerning the means used to bring this about, information is readily provided. One can divulge a "dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."[11]
Click here to view the documents containing the US maps.
Please read also the Interview mit Dr. Pierre Hillard.
Please read also the Interview mit Dr. Pierre Hillard.
Posts
