US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m deal

by **Gouda** » Mon May 22, 2006 2:31 pm

The rebooting of afghanistan. I'd say this is a little more heinous and a little more involved than "whoopie-cushioning" a 2008 democrat president. Getting Afghanis "up and running" ahead of a potential neoliberal pull-out, my ass. First of all, the US has already been "pulling out" of Afghanistan, with NATO picking up some slack - and of course, things have been getting much, much worse there. Not speaking of the renewed, booming opium trade of course, which is simply gangbusters. Unlike the view of the "observers" cited by the journalist, I observe no historical irony here. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/22/warms22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/22/ixnews.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...xnews.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>US sets up £215m deal for Afghan arms - from Russia By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 22/05/2006) American defence officials have secretly requested a "prodigious quantity" of ammunition from Russia to supply the Afghan army in case a Democrat president takes over in Washington and pulls out US troops. The Daily Telegraph can disclose that Pentagon chiefs have asked arms suppliers for a quote on a vast amount of ordnance, including more than 78 million rounds of AK47 ammunition, 100,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 12,000 tank shells - equivalent to about 15 times the British Army's annual requirements. The Bush administration is said to want the deal because of worries that the next president could be a Democrat, possibly Hillary Clinton, who may abandon Afghanistan. White House insiders fear that Afghanistan could "drift" and consequently, they want heavily to arm President Hamid Kharzai's government before the 2008 US presidential election. Diplomatic sources also believe that the US may be offering the estimated $400 million (£215 million) deal, including transport costs, to the Russians as an inducement to embargo its arms and nuclear technology exports to Iran. Defence specialists said Russian arms chiefs at first "fell about laughing" because they thought the order was a joke when it arrived this month. But with the Americans said to be pressing for a price and earliest delivery date, the request is being rapidly processed and exports could begin before the end of this year. The "decade's worth" of ammunition will give the Afghan National Army a vast arsenal to deal with Taliban or drug warlords if Washington withdraws its troops. It would allow Kabul to defend its borders against outside interference but could also be used for offensive operations against neighbours such as the old enemy, Pakistan. "This is a request for a price indication from the Pentagon to the Russians," said an arms source connected to Russia. "After that comes back they will look at their budget and turn it into an order - and it will be an order of huge magnitude. "The operations and planning staff at the Pentagon came up with numbers for their wish list. "The final order may be more or may be less but the broad aim is to spend the budget while they can. They want to stack the country up with ammunition. "It's the equivalent of buying yourself a plane to fly to Le Touquet for lunch and you get yourself a 747 jumbo instead of a light aircraft." All of the material will come from Rosoboron Exports, the sole state intermediary agency for Russia's military exports. Most Afghan weaponry is either Soviet era or compatible with Russian munitions, making shipments from Western countries unnecessary. Rosoboron is one of a few companies that could handle such a big order and should give favourable prices. The Afghan army is 35,000 strong but is expected to grow to 70,000 trained soldiers by 2009. Its troops are already beginning to receive advanced infantry training - the American order includes 50 million blank rounds - with soldiers specialising in artillery and special forces work. The order also suggests the Afghan army will be equipped with T62 tanks, Mi24 Hind attack helicopters and Spandrel anti-tank missiles. If fully trained it will provide a formidable force against insurgents and potential foreign aggressors, including Pakistan where tensions are high on the southern border. "This is completely refitting the Afghan army for the long term and it should stop a resurgence of the Taliban in its tracks," a British arms expert said. "The order will take a year to make and deliver but the Russians are used to large quantities." A senior British officer said: "The point of getting Afghanistan up and running is so they can take on their own operations. "This deal makes sense if we are going to hand over military control to them." Some observers pointed to the irony of the deal, because when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan the Americans sold Stinger surface-to- air missiles to the Mujahideen to enable them to shoot down Moscow's aircraft.<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 5/22/06 12:37 pm

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:57 pm

"A senior British officer said: "The point of getting Afghanistan up and running is so they can take on their own operations." ***** Idiocy on a Cosmic scale ... Like, the WarLords and Taliban can be DEFEATED by spending more money on weapons ... The Warlords and Taliban are integral features of Afghan society, as is Islamic Fundamentalism. More bullets and guns aren't going to change Afghan society. Good GriEF ... More like, making sure Afghanistan remains a failed state that the US Military Machine can 'hopefully' engage in again and exploit. The Pentagon is designed to keep the war machine busy and profits accumulating through provoking death and destruction and violence. I propose we aid the cause of peace and justice by dismantling the War Machine and weaning ourselves off the military-budget addiction. Wouldn't it make more sense to use $400 million in seed money to invest in developments and small-scale businesses and industries to meet basic human needs -- housing, clean water, irrigation, farm subsidies to encourage local food production, improving transportation infrastructure, medical care, small-business manufacturing, public schools. To encourage farmers to stop growing opium, create a gummint program that pays competitive prives for growing tobacco, corn, wheat, rice, beans, hemp (for oil and to supply local textile industries foir export), etc. I mean, it isn't like US military, economic and political interference in the Middle East has been such a resounding success that it would make sense to keep repeating the same stupid ideas over and over and over ... More Bush Inc/Pentagon planning for spectacular failures. Traitors to Humanity is more like it. Starman

by **Gouda** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:14 am

I admit that i can't really make heads or tales of this one, other than there is something really rotten here - and our Telegraph defense correspondent, wittingly or not, raises a million questions (or sends out a million signals) for receptive players, stakeholders, politicians, strategists, and students of the grand chessboard. Perhaps also to gauge reaction. Sure, this is yet another leaked scoop, reporting that some brass are "shopping around" with a "wish list" and merely "getting quotes" - so, this should NOT be considered some kind of done deal, yet, I don't think. We do know this: * There is no "Afghan" nation. An "Afghan National Army" does not exist and will not exist any time this generation. * The arms shipment discussed is way, way too heavy to handle for this type of a small, untrained, disunited army. * Elements of expert colonial power, Britain, seem to be in the loop on this brewing deal. * Things are getting worse in Afghanistan because of the drug trade and due to western intervention. Things are getting worse despite the "stabilizing" presence of NATO and the UN. * The Afghan government is compromised, weak and corrupt. A perfect tool, in fact. The poor farmers are being victimized and used. Kabul itself has become a vast divide between the ultra-wealthy and secure, and the rest of the damned masses. There is no national unity or coherence, and most afghans trust their "government" like they trust anyone too far removed from their families, clans, tribes: Not. * Relations between Karzai and Musharraf have been worsening. (Not that either will survive until 2008 or 2009 or anything, but still...) * Things are not looking up for US interests in central asia at the moment. Many of the Stans seem to be siding with Russia. * Iran, neighbor, wildcard. Double-take items reported in the Telegraph article: * "Pentagon chiefs have asked arms suppliers for a quote on a vast amount of ordnance, including more than 78 million rounds of AK47 ammunition, 100,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 12,000 tank shells - equivalent to about 15 times the British Army's annual requirements...but: "The Afghan army is 35,000 strong but is expected to grow to 70,000 trained soldiers by 2009." That does not add up too well. Or it does for some. * Huh? Ominous: "It would allow Kabul to defend its borders against outside interference but could also be used for offensive operations against neighbours such as the old enemy, Pakistan." Questions: * Why would the Pentagon be cooperating with Russia, avowed Eurasian enemy? Why would the US forego profit on such a large transaction? Is it the old stir up a beehive and scram tactic? * Which part of the Pentagon would want to do this? Is this uniform, coordinated & cleared by the Rumsfeld regime? Is this uniform, coordinated & cleared by the higher foreign war policy elite? Is this the Military-Industrial-Spook complex baring its supra-governmental power again, overriding any and all national interest? OK, yes, but how and for what? * Was the Karzai government consulted on this, or is it all still so naked that military deals are made FOR him? Maybe this news is a surprise to even him. Maybe not. * Is the US thinking ahead to a time when they will need another type of Iran-Iraq conflict (Afghanistan-Pakistan)? Or could this simply be a friendly threat to Pakistan, which may not be cooperating on something presently? Pakistan and Bush are implicated in 911, and so are many of the top democrats, so it might be convenient for Pakistan to fall into a chaos that needs tidying up should 2008 presidential planning become more unpredictable. But what would be the role and interest of Russia in a hyper road-warriorized afghanistan? * Well, could the US be considering "handing off" Afghanistan to Russia in some sort of compromise trade? * Since this is just another leaked "wish list," could this also be partial or total disinformation? One thing is sure: they, the transatlantic and the eurasian sharks, are using afghanistan as bargaining chip - and oh yes, they need really more ammo there... <img src="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/afghanistan/t1.afghan.boy.ap.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 5/23/06 4:36 am

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:32 am

WoW Gouda -- Great instincts for isolating and identifying some of the critical issues here which are part of why this whole thing absolutely REEKS with utter foulness. Esp. your questions re: the potential hand-off of Afghanistan to Russia, perhaps a quid-pro-quo deal to tempt Russia to back-off alignment with and technical/economic relations with Iran -- --quote-- * Well, could the US be considering "handing off" Afghanistan to Russia in some sort of compromised trade? --unquote-- How utterly bizarre -- for Russia to be essentially bribed into arming its former 'enemy' -- especially because, as you say, the Afghan central government is mostly a fiction, having NO validity outside of Kabul, and the Afghan Army will be a paper tiger for at least a generation. Who knows WHAT this 'leak' is really all about -- but it sure in hell isn't a good thing for the people of Afghanistan. Setting-up Afghanistan for a 'nuclear solution'? The whole thing, US intervention and 'management', is a stinking obscene monstrosity. Starman

by **Gouda** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:36 am

US raid and airstrikes: At least 50 dead or wounded civilians... <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2192240,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...40,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Civilians die in raid on Taleban From Tim Albone in Kabul US troops claim to have killed 80 fighters but raids took a heavy toll on innocent lives Haji Ikhalf, 40, a villager, said Taleban fighters had taken shelter in a religious school. When the bombing started, they fled into family homes. “Then those homes were bombed. I saw 35 to 40 dead Taleban and around 50 dead or wounded civilians,” he said. .... The death toll seemed certain to rise, with many villagers unable to get to the hospital in Kandahar. Ambulances were denied access to the area.<hr></blockquote>

by **Gouda** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:36 am

Gouda asked above: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>* Was the Karzai government consulted on this, or is it all still so naked that military deals are made FOR him? Maybe this news is a surprise to even him. Maybe not.<hr></blockquote> Why, apparently he was consulted. AND military deals are made for him. Surprise! Some more clues to this unfolding plot in the <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F3db53bf2-f7dd-11da-9481-0000779e2340.html">following news:</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Kabul may arm militia to fight terrorists By Rachel Morarjee in Kabul, Financial Times online Published: June 9 2006 22:01 | Last updated: June 9 2006 22:01 The Afghan government is considering arming tribal groups across the south of the country, where Nato is set to take command next month, in a move diplomats say would destabilise the country. As violence in the country’s four southern provinces rises to its worst level since 2001, armed village and tribal groups would be recruited to back up the increasingly overstretched police force and fledgling national army. Jawed Ludin, chief of staff in the government of Hamid Karzai, said: “The government wants to take measures to strengthen the security situation in the south. “It is not so much that the terrorists are strong, but that we are weak.” However, experts say the tribal groups to be armed are likely to be militias commanded by warlords, which would create alternative power bases and weaken an already fragile state. One western diplomat said: “If this happens it is the beginning of the end for southern Afghanistan and has far-reaching implications for the north and west.” A senior western security official said: “This is a vote of no confidence in everything that has been done so far to reform the police and army.” But Mr Ludin said a force of young tribesmen could be used to back up police who have been left on the front line in the fight against the Taliban without adequate arms or equipment. “This is not militias. It is strengthening the police and making sure the police have a strong community presence,” he added.<hr></blockquote> What a great thing imperial humanitarian intervention is: cause trauma and instability and poverty by your radioactive presence, feeding discontent everywhere, which increases sympathy for and aids the rise of nasty insurgent groups, which requires re-arming the entire population (one stated goal of the Bonn and London compacts was to DISARM former combatants) in order to fight back the previously defeated insurgency, which means going back to square one. Build up, tear down, rebuild. ReCollapse. Profit. Reboot. Looks like a humanitarian pyramid scheme to me. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 6/10/06 3:57 am

by **Gouda** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:57 am

...And, more complicatedly, it looks a whole lot like a redrawing of strategic borders along ethno-geographic lines, which is exactly what we have seen in the wake of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Get your crayons out Bilderbergers! Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 6/10/06 3:58 am

US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m deal

US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m deal

Re: US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m dea

Re: US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m dea

Re: US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m dea

Re: US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m dea

Re: US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m dea

Re: US to secretly pump Afghan with Russian arms - £215m dea

Who is online