Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby BenDhyan » Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:07 pm

Handsome B. Wonderful » Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:23 am wrote:
DrEvil » Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:34 am wrote:So, who's next? They can't justify throwing another trillion bucks at the MIC without a good war to spend it on.


I agree. The MIC needs to be kept fed with money and blood. I wonder if war is being fomented with Iran? China (over Taiwan)?

Yep, both of those, and perhaps keep the Ukraine-Russian tensions on the boil also. Just like large multinational companies with their 5/10/etc. business plans, each of the major powers has a map of the world projected into the future reflecting their economic and strategic positions, war is one of the options to either attain an advantage or to prevent the other from attaining one. It is still a turf war as in all levels of nature, but in the case of globalization, it is not food, it's power, the one who ultimately wins controls the world.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby DrEvil » Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:12 pm

Handsome B. Wonderful » Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:23 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:34 am wrote:So, who's next? They can't justify throwing another trillion bucks at the MIC without a good war to spend it on.


I agree. The MIC needs to be kept fed with money and blood. I wonder if war is being fomented with Iran? China (over Taiwan)?


Iran could be a good candidate, they just elected a hardliner, and whipping up a Powerpoint presentation showing they're this close to getting nukes shouldn't be hard. China might be a bit much, even if it's just over Taiwan. Too many things that could go horribly wrong.

The goal is sustainable warfare, something that keeps the orders for equipment and bombs coming at a steady pace, while at the same time keeping US casualties at a minimum (just enough for outrage, but not enough for horror), and preferably against someone who can't fight back more than strictly necessary for it to look like a war.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby PufPuf93 » Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:22 pm

DrEvil » Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:12 pm wrote:
Handsome B. Wonderful » Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:23 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:34 am wrote:So, who's next? They can't justify throwing another trillion bucks at the MIC without a good war to spend it on.


I agree. The MIC needs to be kept fed with money and blood. I wonder if war is being fomented with Iran? China (over Taiwan)?


Iran could be a good candidate, they just elected a hardliner, and whipping up a Powerpoint presentation showing they're this close to getting nukes shouldn't be hard. China might be a bit much, even if it's just over Taiwan. Too many things that could go horribly wrong.

The goal is sustainable warfare, something that keeps the orders for equipment and bombs coming at a steady pace, while at the same time keeping US casualties at a minimum (just enough for outrage, but not enough for horror), and preferably against someone who can't fight back more than strictly necessary for it to look like a war.


"Sustainable warfare" may destroy the USA if a better business model is not adopted by the MIC.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby BenDhyan » Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:57 pm



Image

Terrible, no seat belts!
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby conniption » Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:01 am

off-guardian
(embedded links)

6 Questions we NEED to ask about Afghanistan
So, what’s REALLY going on? Is the apparent Taliban “victory” masking the true narrative?

Kit Knightly
Aug 17, 2021


Afghanistan has “fallen”, that’s the line. The Taliban forces have taken the opportunity of US/NATO withdrawal and swept across the entire country, taking every major city within a week and with barely a shot fired.

Joe Biden is being blamed for his “lack of plan”, even as Democrats try and shift the blame to Trump who first decided to pull the US out of Afghanistan over 18 months ago.

Meanwhile, the press are reporting dozens of stories about the humanitarian crises, refugees fleeing the new regime, the fate of women under the Taliban, and “shocking videos” of desperate people.

That’s the official story. But what’s really going on?

1. Did the Taliban really just win?

Firstly, let’s be clear, the US has not “pulled out” of Afghanistan, not in the true sense of the phrase. They still reserve the right to bomb the place. There are still private contractors in the country. And the Pentagon are already booking their return tickets.

Secondly, the Taliban didn’t “win”, they were unopposed. More than unopposed, they were directly aided. When the US abandoned Bagram airbase they left hundreds of armored vehicles, weapons and over 5000 alleged Taliban prisoners…all of which “accidentally” fell into the hands of the advancing Taliban forces.

The Afghan army, under command of US puppet President Ashraf Ghani, essentially folded without a shot being fired. Tens of thousands of US-trained and armed troops did nothing to stop the advance of the enemy.

There are a LOT articles in the MSM endeavouring to explain this. The Guardian. And The Telegraph. The Financial Times. And the non-financial Times. They all give it a go.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot, writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, ties himself in mental knots trying to explain how the Afghan army, with superior numbers AND firepower, “collapsed under pressure”.

The Independent reports that the billions the Pentagon spent on training Afghan security forces has “accidentally” benefited the Taliban, who have now seized vehicles, missiles and aircraft.

The press clearly sees it for what it is – a hole in their story they really need to plug.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is often the most likely. And the simplest explanation here is that the Afghan security forces were ordered to stand down as part of a deal with the Taliban. There are reports and rumours on social media of deals being done:

tweet - The Afghan Perspective

And, of course, the exact terms of the peace agreement, signed by Trump and Taliban last year, are not known. But it’s interesting to note that this agreement actually called for a handover of exactly 5000 Taliban prisoners. The same number “accidentally” left unguarded at Bagram Airbase.

One interpretation is that the withdrawal has gone exactly as planned in the deal signed by Trump. And that the melodrama and “chaos” of the pull-out was either a part of the deal, or a later addition to either cause a distraction or save some face.

2. Is the chaos real?

The media have been generating memes to sell the “chaos” of the Taliban’s advance. The go-to comparison has been the fall of Saigon, because the (completely unintentional) “near-identical images” (completely unintentionally) “went viral”.

We’re treated to a lot of viral video footage. Ranging from the questionable:

tweet - Kit Knightly

To the outright bizarre:

tweet - News For All

All of this serves a purpose, aside from the distraction of emotive metaphors and lurid headlines. It all aids in the construction of a narrative.

In this case, the ideas of US “mistakes” and “incompetence” and “wishful thinking” are discussed at length, without ever touching on the true mendacity at the heart of the Afghan invasion.

The “end” of the Afghan war is being used to re-brand its beginnings. The Taliban are propped up as villains, again, and associated with Al Qaeda, as if they were ever anything but a Western tool in the first place.

People are talking about “spreading democracy” and “counter-terrorism” as if they were the real aims of the war, instead of long-discredited lies.

Marketing Afghanistan as a “defeat” for the US camouflages the truth of it – the war was a VERY profitable business venture.

And, of course, it all serves to reinforce the frail official story of 9/11, a vital keystone in the construction of our geo-political “reality”.

3. What about the heroin?

The press has a long history of, not just lying about Afghan heroin, but totally inverting the truth. In 2019 for example, during the farcical “leak” of the Afghanistan Papers, the press lamented the US’ “failure to curb” the opium trade.

Afghanistan currently produces around 90% of global heroin. When the US invaded in 2001, that number was much closer to zero. The Taliban outlawed the growing of opium poppies in early 2001, and by the end of the year the business was almost extinct.

The US invaded in November 2001, and opium production has increased almost every year since then. We don’t need to go into the CIA’s links to the drug trade here, or how much money people have made from this heroin production. That’s not relevant, what we need to ask is, what now?

Will the newly-reinstated Taliban put an end to this trade again? Or will production continue?

According the press, the heroin will continue to flow. In fact the Taliban will increase production because the “illegal drug trade helps fuel” them.

Reuters reports that the US plan to halt heroin production “failed”, and that the opoium trade is a “boon” for the Taliban.

The Telegraph headlines that “Taliban mulls flooding the West with heroin to shore up Afghan economy”. So we should be prepared for the illegal heroin trade to increase now the US has “withdrawn” from Afghanistan.

But the idea that heroin benefits the Taliban, and the US wants to put an end to it is a myth. Afghan heroin is, and always has been, a US/Deep State/corporate enterprise to the bone.

And, If the Taliban do allow the US to continue to use their land to mass-produce heroin, that is yet another piece of evidence supporting a deal between the Taliban and the West.

4. Will there be any Political Fallout?

So what are the next steps? Where is this going?

Well, in the US, President Joe Biden is experiencing some pretty heavy FLAK. Even his usually-stalwart supporters at CNN ran the headline “Joe Biden is facing a crisis of competence”. Which could mean they’re in the early stages of prepping us for President Kamala Harris.

Geo-politically, the talk is of Russia and China – the only two counties to officially recognise the Taliban government – “stepping into the void”. This is being played as a victory for America’s enemies (and another stick with which to beat Biden), but does that really mean anything?

The Covid “pandemic” has been an eye-opener in terms of conflict between nations. They’ve shown us that, when they really need to, they work together to the same end. They tell the same lies, sell the same stories, and want the same thing. The wall at the back of the theatre has been revealed, in that regard.

The truth is, no matter which nations notionally hold sway in Afghanistan, the profits from the war, the lithium and the heroin will all end up going to the same few pockets. Corporations rule, not countries. Nation-states are no longer the players of the Great Game, they are the pieces. Toys for corporate megaliths. Their owners can make them fight each other, or bump them together and make kissy noises. Each is equally meaningless.

5. Is there another “Refugee Crisis” on the way?

The Afghanistan narrative will fuel other big narratives going forward.

Firstly, there is the coming “refugee crisis”.

The “worst since world war II”, according to Tobias Elwood MP (who can always be relied upon to promote Deep State talking points), which is weird because I’m sure that’s what they said about the refugee crisis in 2016, too. Oh, and in 2019.

The UK’s Defence Secretary has already announced plans to allow Afghan asylum seekers into Britain without passports. Merkel is advocating for similar steps in Germany, and the US press is also on board.

Will these refugees be forced to stay in “quarantine hotels” at their own expense? Have they all been “double jabbed”? We don’t know. Nobody’s thinking about that, that’s from the other narrative. We’re talking about refugees today, Covid can wait.

Anybody opposing asylum seekers entering the country because of Covid will be branded a racist, and medical professionals will claim that “racism is a public health issue more dangerous than covid”, just like they did when the Covid narrative collided with the Black Lives Matter narrative last summer.

That importing asylum seekers, undocumented, from a near-failed state could be suggested at all during an allegedly “deadly pandemic” is a sign of just how contrived both narratives are.

It’s not said much – but corporations love refugees. Just like illegal immigrants, undocumented refugees can be used as cheap labour, with none of the legal protections of full citizens. They can then be blamed for deteriorating living standards, unemployment and wage stagnation. They act as a heat-sink for public anger.

Further, “refugees” with no passports are a great way to get your trained mercenaries, agitators, saboteurs, and/or special forces across national borders without leaving a trail.

The resulting army of undocumented men of fighting age can then serve as a pool of potential “terrorists” who can be “radicalised” at a moments notice and deployed to spread panic at home or abroad.

Which leads us neatly onto…

6. Will we see a major terrorist attack?

It’s only been a few days since the “fall” of Kabul, but already the “renewed terrorism threat” is making waves in the press.

The Sun, in its usual understated style, headlines:
RED ALERT Britain faces ‘direct threat of terrorism’ from Taliban’s Afghan takeover in new wave of terror against West

A rather more sedate report in from AP says: “Concerns over US terror threats rising as Taliban hold grows.”

The New York Times goes almost fully schizophrenic, reporting “A decade ago, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq opened the door for the Islamic State. Will the withdrawal from Afghanistan do the same for the Taliban? and warning of other terror attacks in the future…

…without ever acknowledging that the US never “withdrew” from Iraq at all. Or that they armed, and trained, ISIS.

Bloomberg warns that “The Taliban are already inspiring terror beyond Afghanistan”. The Times is worried about the “terrorist elite” the Taliban freed from Bagram prison.

Project Syndicate reports that “The world should not ignore the risk that Afghanistan under the Taliban could become a breeding ground for international terrorism.”

Politicians from France, the US and UK been eager to talk it up, too:

tweet - Stephen Kinnock

The former head of NATO has said the West needs to “bolster its terror defences”, whilst the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said “terror groups will re-constitute in Afghanistan faster than expected” and the UN is calling for “unity against the global terrorist threat”.

There’s a common theme to some of these dire warnings, too. Tobias Elwood MP (him again), told the Independent:
I would not be surprised if we see another attack on the scale of 9/11, almost to bookend what happened 20 years ago,

Whilst Ivor Roberts, another senior Tory, used the exact same phrase in the Metro, as does this article in The Sun.

All of that in just the last two days.

Does this mean we will see a major terrorist attack?

Maybe, maybe not. We are past due for one, certainly. Major international terrorism, much like the flu, took some time off during the “pandemic.” But, in many ways, the threat is just as effective as the attack itself.

The Covid fear fog is thinning, people are starting to wake up a little, and the people running things need everyone to be afraid.

Conclusion

To sum up the official narrative on US withdrawal from Afghanistan in bullet points:

>> Trump signed a deal with the Taliban, over a year ago, to withdraw from the country and hand over 5000 prisoners.

>> Despite having over a year to plan, the US “withdrawal” was chaotic and messy.

>> The US accidentally left behind weapons, helicopters, ammunition and armoured vehicles, which the Taliban took.

>> The US accidentally left behind 5000 prisoners, whom the Taliban freed.

>> Without US support, the Afghan army, which outnumbers and outguns the Taliban, folded without firing a shot and the Taliban took control of the entire country in less than week.

>> Despite shutting down the heroin trade prior to the US invasion, the Taliban now intend to keep it going, and even increase production.


Do you believe this story? Is it at all believable?

Ignore the sound and fury from the media. The press are like a street magician, if you want to understand what they’re up to you have to look past the hand he’s waving in your face, and look at the one behind his back.

It seems fairly obvious, to me anyway, that US gave weapons and vehicles to the Taliban in exchange for a promise to keep the heroin production going (and maybe access to mineral mines, no word on that yet).

Meanwhile, the “fall out” of the totally manufactured “chaos” is being used to fan the flames of fear-porn. Promoting division over asylum seekers and spreading panic about terrorism.

In short, the Afghanistan story, as related by the mainstream press, is a twisted illogical ball of confusion, intended to provide fuel for future narratives of control.

…which is pretty much true of everything in the news, these days.
_______

comments


https://off-guardian.org/2021/08/17/6-q ... ghanistan/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby PufPuf93 » Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:56 pm

Anyone else aware of this Trump / Pompeo Agreement with the Taliban?

Trump had Pakistan release 5000 imprisoned Taliban including Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the current leader of the Taliban.

The Trump Administration did not cooperate in the hand over of power.

Biden has mucked the exit up, obvious problems in intelligence and implementation by the military; not recognizing the Taliban would sweep the country with speed and cooperation /standdown of government forces.

Read this agreement (4 page pdf)

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upload ... .29.20.pdf
Last edited by PufPuf93 on Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:10 pm

The Trump agreement was much publicized and politicized at the time.

Per the Off-Guardian joint, "the heroin" isn't nearly as much of a question as "the rare earth mineral deposits." Synthetic opioids went from experimental possibility to mass product during the 20 year span of the Afghan occupation; heroin is a third world commodity now.

I expect to see Biden mounted with a laundry list of fall guy problems like this up until January 2023. In terms of corruption / ownership via China, the California Machine that Harris represents is even more compromised than sad old Joe is.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:50 pm

.

2023. You think he'll last that long?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby PufPuf93 » Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:02 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:10 am wrote:The Trump agreement was much publicized and politicized at the time.

Per the Off-Guardian joint, "the heroin" isn't nearly as much of a question as "the rare earth mineral deposits." Synthetic opioids went from experimental possibility to mass product during the 20 year span of the Afghan occupation; heroin is a third world commodity now.

I expect to see Biden mounted with a laundry list of fall guy problems like this up until January 2023. In terms of corruption / ownership via China, the California Machine that Harris represents is even more compromised than sad old Joe is.


Biden will be pilloried without end about every single issue and legislation, categorically whether he or the Dem party have fucked up. The GOP is great for blocking or limiting the scope of legislation or policy, then taking the credit.

IIRC not just rare earth deposits and poppies, but also (from Ruppert?) the route of natural gas pipelines through southern n Afghanistan.

Just got my ballot at the PO today for the recall election.

Newsom is a great example of "do as I say, not as I do" but California will be more a disaster than now should he be recalled.

Northern California is literally on fire. I am at direct risk and have been living in smoke for weeks.

The polarization away from the cities is extreme.

I'm tired.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

California Recall

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:18 pm

.

Off topic but since you mentioned it...

The rules for this process are incredibly stupid.

An office-holder is recalled and taken out of office on losing the vote. A 51-49 vote in favor of recall will do that. Never mind that 49 percent voted to retain the office holder.

Then, voters have a single vote to cast for one candidate out of a multi-page ballot with 20 or 30 replacement candidates. Whichever one gets the highest number of votes wins and become governor. (On this round the candidates are almost all no-names, unlike Schwarzenegger, with the Jenner character from the Kardashian show being the best-known.)

For example, if the recall is approved and then the candidate who gets the highest number of votes has 9 percent, they become governor. No further rounds, no runoffs.

So if that happens, 9 > 49.

A random selection would be far more fair.

Have I made a mistake in the above? Please correct.

If not, who came up with this insanity?

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:29 am

I think it's pretty safe to say that they have other means at their disposal of removing Biden, some of them extremely useful to their cause, like a disgruntled vet getting radicalized by frogs, or a QAnon believer who was locked up after The January 6th Kayfabe Kerfuffle. However, I will also admit to being astonished that if Biden starts asking reporters where he is, or crying about baseball games at press conferences, that a congressional recall is the only way to get him out. And, that's pretty funny.

Anyways, an interesting piece on the contractor angle in Afghanistan -- note that this is from May and events have accelerated since then, but I do wonder, just the same, if the private sphere will remain in place and cooperate with the "Taliban" to help facilitate their rule, their force projection, and their maintenance & protection of strategic infrastructure.

URL says "US Contractors in Afghanistan are Hiring Amid Withdrawl"

The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan? Tell That to the Contractors.
American firms capitalize on the withdrawal, moving in with hundreds of new jobs.


The skies above Kabul have been abuzz over the past week with massive cargo planes flying out equipment amid the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some are flying out of Bagram Air Base, a monster American stronghold once home to 40,000 military personnel and civilian contractors at the peak of the war here. Today, there are 3,300 U.S. troops in the entire country, who, like their NATO colleagues, are all scheduled to leave by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Yet contractors who make up America’s largest force in Afghanistan are beefing up their presence just in time to plug the vacuum that will be left behind.

“So far, nothing is changing,” said a contractor working for a U.S. company based in Bagram. News from the Pentagon has yet to trickle down. “I am not aware of any changes to my job or of any contracts being passed to the Afghan government. These are American companies and these contracts will remain under private payroll.”


“I don’t have much to share because no one has told us shit,” says another. “If there is an endgame, no one has told it to us. It’s like the Pentagon is scrambling to build some sort of ‘get out’ plan as we are walking it.”

Contractors are a force both the U.S. and Afghan governments have become reliant on, and contracts in the country are big business for the U.S. Since 2002, the Pentagon has spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis. The Department of Defense currently employs more than 16,000 contractors in Afghanistan, of whom 6,147 are U.S. citizens — more than double the remaining U.S. troops.

General Kenneth McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, has said contractors will come out as the U.S. military does, but many do not work for the military to begin with — rather, for other departments and a string of private entities. For instance, both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department are retaining contractors for ongoing programs outside Kabul, despite the withdrawal. “McKenzie was talking about U.S. contractors on DoD contracts but not necessarily the other agencies or other nationalities,” says another contractor at Bagram. “There are a lot of ‘if’s and potential exceptions in that line from him.”

But as some Americans leave, others are also arriving at Bagram, which senior Afghan military officials have confirmed will be the remaining hub for contractors. In April, 70 American security and defense firms started advertising more than 100 new security and intelligence positions, some with year contracts that go beyond September 11, 2021.

One such company is Triple Canopy, which is owned by Constellis, a company that also owns Academi, the most recent iteration of Erik Prince’s notorious Blackwater private-military contractors. Triple Canopy is hiring armed guards at Bagram to provide security for remaining U.S. personnel at four sites across the country. Raytheon Technologies is posting for logistics and intelligence analyst positions in Bagram. CACI and BAE Systems both posted jobs for signals intelligence specialists for an estimated term of 12 months. SOSi posted openings for intelligence analysts for yearlong deployments, where “the work environment could require 100 percent of time spent outdoors.” PAE, Inc., who scored nearly a billion dollars’ worth of contracts with the Pentagon over four years, is hiring for a contract for the State Department. Fluor Corporation is hiring for technicians, working for both the U.S. and the private sector. Louis Berger, who built and maintains the country’s largest power plant, inside Bagram, is posting more than 20 new positions at the base.

“U.S. technical teams will continue to help Afghan forces in some sections beyond September 11, some from Bagram,” said a contractor with knowledge of the new jobs. The contractor has worked for a private agency at Bagram for 15 years and renewed his contract for three years in mid-April. Other contractors, he said, will be based outside the country “but visit from time to time,” in line with the Pentagon’s plans for “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism missions. Either way, he said, the “U.S. business portfolio in Afghanistan will continue.”

Post-withdrawal, the biggest issue will be force protection. The U.S. Embassy is most likely to house remaining CIA personnel and contractors, who could face security risks such as kidnapping. The Embassy will retain a modest military presence, as is standard, but contractors would probably rely on U.S. contractors for security. “Many international firms are likely to be leery of entrusting Afghan security forces without supplementary measures of their own,” said Andrew Watkins, senior analyst on Afghanistan for the International Crisis Group.

Like CIA personnel, contractors can be untraceable, and by design, they exist uncounted while they support the military with logistical roles such as transportation. Some have murkier roles in the shadowy world of proxy dark ops and mercenaries. Others help operate the billion-dollars’ worth of U.S. equipment and heavy weaponry within the Afghan military: Contractors provide all of the maintenance for the Afghan Air Force’s U.S.–made Black Hawk helicopters and C-130 cargo planes. The air traffic controllers at the country’s airports are international contractors, said Watkins, with no organic local labor pool of Afghans trained up for the job to draw from.

“So many contracts extend beyond the withdrawal deadline and between what U.S. officials say and what the immense needs are on the ground, something doesn’t add up and something’s got to give,” said Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program and senior associate at The Wilson Center. “Hence the likelihood that the contractor footprint will remain entrenched, to some degree.”

That demand could be filled by the billion-dollar industry of private military contractors, since they don’t count as “boots on the ground” but offer the same level and range of skills — all at a much lower political cost and with a dose of secrecy. The lines that differentiate such contractors from mercenaries are blurry: While private military contractors are considered legal, mercenaries are banned by international and U.S. laws, something which caused trouble for Prince when he was found to be training and constituting private armies in Iraq and Libya, and who had plans to privatize the war in Afghanistan.

“This is really sensitive territory, and these folks will need to carry out a very delicate dance with their activities to avoid running afoul of the law,” said Kugelman. “The administration wants to draw down and move on to other things, with any remaining security presence largely kept out of the public eye. The last thing it wants is another contractor controversy and will need to be very careful in all decisions about how to handle remaining contractors post-September.” It’s possible that some contracts could face early termination, but that could entail large penalties or legal hurdles for amending or breaking them.

Beyond maintaining the airports and bases, equipment and planes, both the military and contractors rely on a force of Afghan contractors and locals for labor, such as cooks, laundry staff, drivers, and translators — staff who will face the largest financial hit from the withdrawal. At the war’s height, it was estimated that more than 12,000 Afghans worked at Bagram. Today, about 1,700 remain. “After four years as a translator, I am worried I will be let go. All of us are worried. We saw this happen before and in what felt like a day, hundreds of us walked out of the bases for the last time,” says an Afghan contractor working at Bagram. “I was lucky, but I am not betting on keeping my job this time. I might have already seen my last paycheck. We are all preparing for the worst.”

Many U.S. contractors who have dedicated years of their lives on the ground in a war that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars are ready to get out. “If they offered me an early termination on my contract, I’d take it,” said a contractor at Bagram. “Fuck this place, I mean, good luck to the Afghan guys left here with the Talibs, to be honest, they deserve more, but all I can say is, they are fucked.” For those still at Bagram, the U.S. war isn’t ending with a U.S. military exit just yet, and for the newcomers about to step foot in Bagram, a new, important, and perhaps more covert mission is about to begin.

Correction, 5/13/21: A previous version of this article said Fluor Corporation is hiring armed guards and intelligence analysts for Afghanistan.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:47 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:29 am wrote:However, I will also admit to being astonished that if Biden starts asking reporters where he is, or crying about baseball games at press conferences, that a congressional recall is the only way to get him out. And, that's pretty funny.


How so? What's a congressional recall? Do you mean impeachment? Educate me.

Notwithstanding what the Algerian junta was able to pull for years with Bouteflika, if Biden's descent became so extreme that it could not be passed off as adorable old guy meltdowns or 'stuttering', if it becomes impossible to sustain him in office (which I'd bet on), they'll have his wife guide him to a dignified resignation. If somehow he was resisting it (or she was), there is the 25th amendment.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby PufPuf93 » Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:37 am

Not sure where to place this but here will work.

Date Issued: Friday, August 13, 2021 02:00 pm ET

Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland

The Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin regarding the current heightened threat environment across the United States. The Homeland continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment leading up to and following the 20th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks as well religious holidays we assess could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence. These threats include those posed by domestic terrorists, individuals and groups engaged in grievance-based violence, and those inspired or motivated by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences. These actors are increasingly exploiting online forums to influence and spread violent extremist narratives and promote violent activity. Such threats are also exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.


Duration


Issued: August 13, 2021 02:00 pm
Expires: November 11, 2021 02:00 pm

Additional Details

Through the remainder of 2021, racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists will remain a national threat priority for the United States. These extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks. Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal strains and tensions, driving several plots by domestic violent extremists, and they may contribute to more violence this year.

Additionally, leading up to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula recently released its first English-language copy of Inspire magazine in over four years, which demonstrates that foreign terrorist organizations continue efforts to inspire U.S.-based individuals susceptible to violent extremist influences.

Historically, mass-casualty domestic violent extremist attacks linked to RMVEs have targeted houses of worship and crowded commercial facilities or gatherings. Some RMVEs advocate via online platforms for a race war and have stated that civil disorder provides opportunities to engage in violence in furtherance of ideological objectives. The reopening of institutions, including schools, as well as several dates of religious significance over the next few months, could also provide increased targets of opportunity for violence though there are currently no credible or imminent threats identified to these locations.

Foreign and domestic threat actors, to include foreign intelligence services, international terrorist groups and domestic violent extremists, continue to introduce, amplify, and disseminate narratives online that promote violence, and have called for violence against elected officials, political representatives, government facilities, law enforcement, religious communities or commercial facilities, and perceived ideologically-opposed individuals. There are also continued, non-specific calls for violence on multiple online platforms associated with DVE ideologies or conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud and alleged reinstatement, and responses to anticipated restrictions relating to the increasing COVID cases.

Ideologically motivated violent extremists fueled by personal grievances and extremist ideological beliefs continue to derive inspiration and obtain operational guidance through the consumption of information shared in certain online communities. This includes information regarding the use of improvised explosive devices and small arms.
Violent extremists may use particular messaging platforms or techniques to obscure operational indicators that provide specific warning of a pending act of violence.
Law enforcement have expressed concerns that the broader sharing of false narratives and conspiracy theories will gain traction in mainstream environments, resulting in individuals or small groups embracing violent tactics to achieve their desired objectives. With a diverse array of threats, DHS is concerned that increased outbreaks of violence in some locations, as well as targeted attacks against law enforcement, may strain local resources.

Nation-state adversaries have increased efforts to sow discord. For example, Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked media outlets have repeatedly amplified conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 and effectiveness of vaccines; in some cases, amplifying calls for violence targeting persons of Asian descent.

How We Are Responding

DHS will continue to identify and evaluate calls for violence, including online activity associated with the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives, by known or suspected threat actors and provide updated information, as necessary.

DHS continues to encourage the public to maintain awareness of the evolving threat environment and report suspicious activity.
DHS is coordinating with state and local law enforcement and public safety partners to maintain situational awareness of potential violence in their jurisdictions and maintain open lines of communication with federal partners.

DHS is also advancing authoritative sources of information to debunk and, when possible, preempt false narratives and intentional disinformation, and providing educational materials to promote resilience to the risks associated with interacting with and spreading disinformation, conspiracy theories and false narratives.

More broadly, DHS remains committed to identifying and preventing terrorism and targeted violence while protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all persons.

How You Can Help

Report suspicious activity and threats of violence, including online threats, to local law enforcement, FBI Field Offices, or local Fusion Center.

If you know someone who is struggling with mental health issues or may be a danger to themselves or others, support is available.

Be Prepared and Stay Informed

Be prepared for emergency situations and remain aware of circumstances that may place you at risk.

Maintain digital media literacy to recognize and build resilience to false and harmful narratives.

Make note of your surroundings and the nearest security personnel.

Government agencies will provide details about emerging threats as information is identified. The public is encouraged to listen to local authorities and public safety officials.

If You See Something, Say Something®. Report suspicious activity to local law enforcement or call 911.

https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/natio ... st-13-2021
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby Harvey » Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:40 pm

An eloquent diatribe on Afghanistan by UK rapper Lowkey.



The man at work.

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Obama: send 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Postby Harvey » Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:39 pm

If the fall of Kabul proves anything, it is that the US never had any allies in Afghanistan outside of a tiny elite that saw the chance to enrich itself, protected by US and British firepower and given an alibi by western liberals who assumed their own simplistic discourse about identity politics was ripe for export.


Full article by Jonathan Cook: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2021-08-1 ... agon-lies/
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests