&host=rt.com&uri=/politics/afghan-occupation-china-russia/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“Afghan occupation has little to do with Afghanistan per se” – writer
Published: 16 August, 2010, 21:35
Edited: 20 August, 2010, 12:00
A CH-53 helicopter releases flares after being shot at from the ground while flying over Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan
(20.7Mb) embed videoTAGS: Conflict, Politics, Afghanistan
American public support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low, with July being the deadliest month for US and NATO troops since 2001.
With frustration growing about the occupation of the country, politicians in Germany have even suggested talking to the Taliban and terrorist organisations to avoid a further escalation of violence.
Speaking to RT, author of the best-selling book “Century of War”, Frederick William Engdahl indicated that the Germans can’t “quite understand” what the purpose of the entire war is.
He also spoke about his idea of the real reasons behind the conflict.
“The Afghan occupation – you have to understand – has nothing or very little to do with Afghanistan per se. It has to do with Russia, it has to do with China. It has to do with the Central Asian countries and spreading what some have called the "30-year War" scenario to prevent the independent economic development of Russia, China and Shanghai Cooperation states,” Engdahl told RT.
On Sunday, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan said he is not bound by the July 2011 date set for a troop pull-out.
General David Petraeus said he could well advise President Barack Obama not to go ahead with the pull-out if he believes it is the wrong time.
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen says General Petraeus' comments are an indicator of Obama's policy, including those concerning the 2011 withdrawal.
“Petraeus has interviews with all the corporate media – you can’t have this general making public comments to the media without some sort of clearance from the White House,” Madsen told RT.
Watch the full interview with Wayne Madsen
Meanwhile, President Hamid Karzai’s spokesman has said the president was planning to dissolve all private security firms in Afghanistan. The move could see some 25,000 security guards disbanded and entail a substantial change in the country’s security arrangement.
However, member of the Afghan parliament Daoud Sultanzoy believes the announcement is premature and those behind it are likely to regret making it.
“The president thought that the security companies are the problem. But I think it is not the security companies per se, but the poor management and poor implementation of the law. The president made a statement and now he is in a difficult situation,” Sultanzoy said.
Watch the full interview with Daoud Sultanzoy
Ivan Eland, director of the Center for Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute, believes Hamid Karzai is targeting unregistered local warlords more than security companies.
“He is probably playing the nationalist card periodically because the US occupation of Afghanistan is unpopular with the people,” Eland told RT. “He may be using this as a front to get rid of a lot of big security companies that are Afghan and not foreign because they are like gangs.”
Ann Marlowe, a visiting fellow with the independent Hudson Institute think tank, claims that President Karzai may want a piece of the security contracting action for family associates.
"My angle is maybe Karzai is shutting down all of them in order to reopen ones belonging to his family," she told RT.Nathan Park, a contractor in Afghanistan, told RT that Afghan forces are not ready to provide security.
16.08.2010, 17:35
5 comments
Petraeus opens media offensive, challenges Obama's Afghan exit dateThe new commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan says a July 2011 deadline for ending the protracted military operation may turn out to be mission impossible. |
17.08.2010, 16:10
ROAR: “Parade of regional presidents should be stopped”The proposal of the Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov to change the name of his title has found understanding from other regional heads, but provoked a mixed reaction from politicians and analysts. |
Dialogue with the Taliban has been a off-n-on subject with some U.S politicans including Obama. One peace activist says America does not have the skills to do what is right and just for the common man because the bottom line has always been political, economical and military for its own agenda.
I agree...In my opinion objectivs of this fake "war on terror" are: 1. To find purpose-reason to prolong life of Nato( Usa dominant)and Usa(to remain as "only supepower") 2. To have a reason to project millitary power around the globe(bases ) 3. Find a "job" for other Nato members(so they do not think to much)and keep them doing something "useful"-to put Europe down 4.Stop Russia and special China change this status quo around the globe(economy,millitary.etc) which fits Usa-to keep things as they are 5,To make a way for rich resourses(future oil.gas pipelane) in Central Asia(next is Iran, Sudan,etc-Africa) 6.To make MIC(millitary industrial complex) happy and sell a lot weapons(include ABMS) becouse everyone will"need" one. 7. To medle in afairs of others(pay/bay government officials) for Purple,orange,green,rose "trojan horses" " 8.Spreding "democracy,human rights,etc" There is more:To by pass UN and all international laws, also to devide,break(more states will be born)brainwash ,dissarm(unprotected to be),spread of hate among different states(more wars),to weaken others and remain strong and maybe one day colonize all of this..Minor objectivs will be in place but major will not.China will in 20 Years become superpower(20-30 x bigger GDP than Usa) and Russia will remain superpower (will become richer and more powerful then ever) becouse, in my opinion,Usa (or any other state) GOT NO LEVEL AGAINST RUSSIA OR CHINA AND NEVER WILL HAVE. China did not have one single n.bombs and yet they win Korea war against Usa and the rest and now they have 1000 of them! To stop them?? Anyway,what is wrong is someone overtake someone by peaceful and honest means? Free market is what Usa hold as a holy and by that rule China did progress fast. I can't see anything wrong here! Also it is thanks to China continues grow why Usa economy did not colapse up to now. I think that Usa can do a lot of better in peace than in constant wars which is a wrong way to go...Thank you
The US is just making a grab for Afghanistan. The "war on terror" is a fraud being played out by the Pentagon generals for the benefit of the naive American public.