Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 19 mai 2019

Début de conflit entre le Pentagone et l'Europe sur les questions de défense

Pentagone-Washington-26-decembre-2011_0_730_505.jpg

Début de conflit entre le Pentagone et l'Europe sur les questions de défense

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu

Washington tente de convaincre l'Union européenne de le soutenir dans ses projets de guerre contre l'Iran. Les Européens sont plus que réticents.

Mais cette question pose à nouveau la question de savoir si l'Union européenne, ou si certains Etats de celle-ci, en premier lieu la France, pourront sans conflits graves avec Washington, se doter d'une armée européenne indépendante de l'Otan et s'équipant en priorité de matériels militaires conçus et fabriqués en Europe.

Le 1er mai, le département de la Défense des États-Unis a envoyé une lettre à l'Union européenne l'avertissant que la création par les Européens d'une armée indépendante des Américains pourrait entraîner l'effondrement de l'alliance de l'OTAN entre les États-Unis et les Etats européens. La lettre, envoyée par les sous-secrétaires américains à la Défense, Ellen Lord et Andrea Thompson, à la responsable de la politique étrangère de l'Union, Federica Mogherini, a été évoquée é par le quotidien espagnol El Pais le 13 mai. On notera que ce même jour, le secrétaire d'Etat américain Mike Pompeo, s'était invité sans y avoir été convié à une réunion des ministres des Affaires étrangères de l'Union à Bruxelles pour exiger leur soutien aux projets américains de guerre contre l'Iran.

La lettre du Département de la Défense indiquait que « Les États-Unis sont profondément préoccupés par l'approbation des règles relatives au Fonds européen de défense et des conditions générales de la Coopération structurée permanente (CSP) ». La lettre a précisé qu'une armée européenne entraînera «un recul spectaculaire de trois décennies d'intégration croissante du secteur de la défense transatlantique». Elle a mis en garde contre le danger d'une «concurrence inutile entre l'OTAN et l'UE».

Cette lettre comportait la menace plus ou moins voilée visant de possibles représailles politiques ou commerciales si Bruxelles maintenait son intention de développer « des projets d'armement européens sans consulter des pays extérieurs, comme les États-Unis». On rappellera à ce sujet que le Fonds européen de la défense stipule que les entreprises européennes doivent contrôler la technologie utilisée dans les systèmes d'armement européens, sans dépendre nécessairement de technologies étrangères, notamment américaine.

Faisant référence aux conflits qui avaient éclaté lorsque Berlin et Paris s'étaient opposées à l'invasion de l'Irak par les États-Unis en 2003, la lettre indique que les projets européens actuels «pourraient non seulement nuire aux relations constructives entre l'OTAN et l'Union Européenne, mais également relancer potentiellement les échanges tendus qui ont dominé nos relations il y a 15 ans sur les initiatives de défense de l'Europe».

Le sérieux avec lequel des menaces de rupture de l'alliance américano-européenne sont prises en Europe a trouvé un écho dans la publication cette semaine d'une étude réalisée par le groupe de réflexion IISS (International Institute of Strategic Studies) à Londres. Cette étude, intitulée «Défendre l'Europe: les scénarios de capacités nécessaires pour les membres européens de l'OTAN», évalue les coûts supportés par l'Europe pour reconstruire la capacité militaire de l'OTAN si les États-Unis abandonnaient l'alliance. Mais l'IISS n'envisage apparemment que la question de la défense de l'Europe en cas d'une invasion russe. Il évalue en ce cas le renforcement de capacité navale pour un coût de 110 milliards de dollars et des dépenses de 357 milliards de dollars ;

Ceci en soi ne devrait pas inquiéter Washington. Une éventuelle armée européenne n'est en rien présenté par l'Union comme devant mener une guerre contre les Etats-Unis. Mais ce qui inquiète ceux-ci est la perspective de voir les industries de défense européenne faire appel à leurs ressources propres plutôt que dépendre massivement, comme c'est le cas actuellement, à l'exception de la France, de l'industrie militaire américaine. Celle-ci fait la loi au Pentagone.

Aujourd'hui, l'Espagne donne l'exemple en matière de désolidarisation d'avec la politique américaine dans le domaine d'une possible guerre américaine contre l'Iran. Elle retiré sa frégate Méndez Núñez du groupe aéronaval dirigé par les États-Unis et mené par le porte-avions Abraham Lincoln, qui se rend dans le golfe Persique pour menacer l'Iran. La ministre espagnole de la Défense, Margarita Robles, a déclaré «Si le gouvernement nord-américain a l'intention de faire en sorte que le porte-avions Abraham Lincoln se rende dans une zone donnée pour une mission dont il n'a jamais convenu avec l'Espagne, nous quittons provisoirement le groupement tactique.» Elle a cependant assuré que Washington ne devait pas considérer cela comme une rupture définitive. On pourra lire à ce sujet Challenges

Rappelons que des tensions s'accentuent également au sujet des relations entre l'Europe et la Chine, après que l'Italie eut officiellement signé en mars un mémorandum d'accord approuvant l'Initiative d chinoise de la BRI ou la nouvelle route de la soie), un vaste plan d'infrastructure eurasien pouvant inclure certains Etats européens, ceci malgré les objections des États-Unis. Par ailleurs, Washington a menacé l'Allemagne et la Grande-Bretagne de suspendre la coopération en matière de renseignement pour avoir autorisé la société chinoise Huawei à participer à la construction de leur réseau de télécommunications.

Ceci dit, il est évident que si certains européens voulaient prendre leur indépendance à l'égard des industries militaires américaines, comme De Gaulle en son temps, ils devraient clairement sortir de l'Otan.

jeudi, 15 février 2018

La nouvelle politique militaire des États-Unis – attention – danger !

penta1.jpg

La nouvelle politique militaire des États-Unis – attention – danger !

samedi, 16 septembre 2017

Dae’ch et les autres : bienvenue dans le « monde VUCA » !

us-imperialism-2007.jpg

Dae’ch et les autres : bienvenue dans le « monde VUCA » !

Richard Labévière
Journaliste,
Rédacteur en chef  du magazine en ligne : prochetmoyen-orient.ch
Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch

L’ensemble de la presse mondiale a, dernièrement commémoré le premier anniversaire de la Coalition internationale qui a déclenché ses premiers bombardements contre des positions de l’organisation « Etat islamique » (Dae’ch) en Irak et en Syrie, le 2 août 2014. Un an plus tard, tout le monde s’étonne que cette « alliance », réunissant quand même les armées les plus puissantes du monde, n’ait pas réussi à éradiquer une organisation constituée de quelque 30 à 35 000 fusils tout au plus. Le même constat vaut également pour Jabhat al-Nosra et les autres résidus d’Al-Qaïda ayant prospéré en Asie, en Afrique ou en Europe.

Pourquoi un tel étonnement, sinon une telle cécité ? La réponse est pourtant aussi claire et limpide que La Lettre volée d’Edgar Allan Poe, posée  là, sous nos yeux, alors que personne ne veut vraiment la voir… Les experts militaires américains, qui donnent le « la » en matière de « guerre contre la terreur » depuis quatorze ans, l’ont dit, redit et écrit : il ne s’agit nullement d’éradiquer le terrorisme, d’en neutraliser définitivement les protagonistes, de casser définitivement ses inspirateurs et d’en assécher les financements. L’objectif principal est de « gérer » son développement, ses mutations et l’évolution de sa cartographie afin d’accompagner la reconfiguration, la modernisation et la diversification de l’hégémonie stratégique, économique et politique des Etats-Unis et de leurs alliés.

En août dernier, le président de la République française - à l’unisson avec ses homologues américains, britannique et allemand -, l’a expliqué très clairement à ses ambassadeurs : « la guerre contre Dae’ch va durer dix, quinze ou vingt ans ». Cette fatalité de la longue durée correspond, non pas à une espèce de complot centralisé ni à une conspiration globale, mais s’inscrit dans la logique d’un « procès sans sujet », conforme aux motivations, aux stratégies et aux intérêts de la mondialisation néo-libérale. Cette incapacité à éradiquer Dae’ch est d’autant plus assumée par les grands décideurs mondiaux qu’ils savent parfaitement que l’action militaire extérieure n’est qu’un segment limité de la panoplie contre-terroriste. Ils savent tout aussi pertinemment que Dae’ch ne pourra être éradiqué durablement sans « assécher » politiquement et idéologiquement l’extrémisme sunnite dont les bailleurs de fonds sont devenus nos meilleurs partenaires commerciaux. Dae’ch est une chose, les affaires en sont une autre : vive la « politique sunnite » de François hollande et Laurent Fabius ! 

Orphelines de l’ennemi communiste, les officines stratégiques du Pentagone, leurs tutelles politiques et les industries de défense occidentales de l’après Guerre froide (garantissant des millions d’emplois et de sous-traitants) devaient impérativement - au risque d’entrer en déshérence -, trouver une autre figure du « mal », définir une menace « globale », autrement dit se fabriquer un nouvel ennemi commun. Ce fût chose faite dès le 11 septembre 2001. Là encore, soyons clairs : il ne s’agit pas de céder à la moindre tentation des théories conspirationnistes et autres « effroyables impostures » ayant fait florès après l’effondrement des tours du World Trade Center, mais bien de restituer rigoureusement pourquoi et comment les administrations Bush successives et celles qui suivirent, ont magistralement « utilisé » cette tragédie afin de pousser leurs pions.

A l’époque, plusieurs économistes réveillés relevaient que le budget du Département américain de la Défense avait enregistré ses hausses les plus importantes depuis la guerre de Corée. Avec un certain étonnement, les mêmes constataient que George W. Bush - digne héritier de Ronald Reagan et de  Margaret Thatcher -, adepte d’un monétarisme des plus classiques et de toutes les recettes les plus libérales, s’était brusquement converti à une politique budgétaire farouchement keynésienne ! En effet, les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont fortement contribué à la relance de l’économie américaine qui marquait alors le pas. Mais ce bon usage de la terreur ne profita pas qu’aux seuls investisseurs américains et devait impulser une nouvelle révolution dans les affaires militaires qui s’esquissait depuis la fin des années 90.

Dans les amphithéâtres de l’US-Army-War-College de Carlisle en Pennsylvanie, des professeurs de stratégie militaire commençaient alors à populariser un nouveau concept en quatre lettres pour résumer le monde : VUCA, pour Volatility, Uncertainity, Complexity, Ambiguity. Dans le monde de la fin des années 90, ces experts nous expliquaient que toute espèce de projets et d’actions étaient devenus « volatiles ». Par conséquent, chaque option stratégique était appelée à changer extrêmement rapidement, la visibilité à moyen terme n’étant pas seulement devenue « incertaine », mais proprement impossible. La « complexité » des interactions, des facteurs d’influence et des acteurs devenait la norme, l’ « ambiguïté » étant désormais la règle et non plus l’exception.

pentaUSvue.jpg

Et toujours très positifs, nos amis américains se félicitaient que dans un tel monde devenu « VUCA », l’incertitude ne constituait nullement un problème, mais présentait au contraire une chance à saisir comme levier d’innovation et de performance. « Les acteurs qui réussissent », affirmaient ces professeurs, « sont ceux qui investissent dans la connaissance de soi, cultivent le succès collectif et encouragent l’agilité et la fluidité efficaces ». La loi de la variété requise, développé par R. Ashby en 1956 (dans An Introduction to Cybernetics) stipule que seule la « variété » peut répondre à la variété. En d’autres termes : plus une personne ou un système génère et active « sa diversité », plus elle est capable de s’adapter aux changements provenant de son environnement et d’assurer son existence. Appliquée à VUCA, cette loi nous enseigne que seul VUCA sait répondre à VUCA.

Les nouveaux chefs (militaires, économiques et politiques) doivent donc incarner un « projet de sens » qui libère les engagements tout en laissant s’exprimer les ruses de la volatilité, comme autant d’opportunités à saisir et à utiliser afin de promouvoir des « changements incessants ». L’incertitude invite ces chefs à profiter des situations inédites pour apprendre… Au lieu de renforcer les procédures de contrôles connues et des actions propices à la reproduction du système en vigueur. Ils « trouvent alors le courage de créer des espaces de liberté, de créativité et d’expérimentation rapide ». La complexité oblige les acteurs clés à coopérer et à privilégier le succès collectif. Pour saisir la complexité d’une situation, ses multiples enjeux et ses différents leviers, il est obligatoire de créer des groupes divers, transversaux et hétérogènes. Pour trouver des solutions véritablement innovantes, il s’agit donc de travailler en grand groupe, d’oser le chaos provisoire, de privilégier l’expérimentation ciblée au lieu de déployer un plan convenu. Sont alors privilégiées « les dynamiques alternatives ». L’ambiguïté se manifeste à travers des figures ambivalentes, par la non-cohérence d’un projet, le mélange des responsabilités, les multiples interprétations d’un concept. Cette ambiguïté doit devenir la culture dominante des nouveaux chefs : celle consistant à vivre avec une variété de solutions au lieu de s’attacher à l’obsession de la clarification, à la recherche d’une cohérence, ainsi qu’à celle d’une quête de « la » solution à déployer. Dans un monde VUCA, rien n’est acquis d’avance, rien n’est durablement stable et tout est opportunité !

Enfin, nos professeurs édictaient cinq principes à l’usage des nouveaux chefs voulant réussir « dans la joie » : 1) dans un monde VUCA, l’agilité d’une organisation se débloque en passant de la réaction à l’action par le « sens » ; 2) dans un monde VUCA, tout se transforme quand le système se libère d’une obsession de performance opérationnelle pour privilégier la recherche d’excellence relationnelle ; 3) dans un monde VUCA, le chaos devient créateur, le vide faisant place à de nouvelles solutions ; 4) dans un monde VUCA, l’individu peut se sentir perdu mais l’intelligence collective en action s’affirmera comme le nouveau levier de performance ; 5) Dans un monde VUCA, la notion de « leadership » est renversée pour laisser place à la puissance d’une nouvelle posture … celle du « Followership ». Bref, dans ce meilleur des mondes possibles, les chefs et, en définitive tous les acteurs qui savent conjuguer la joie et le « sens » vont être en mesure d’inventer des formules inédites de performance.

C’est presque aussi bien que La Richesse des nations d’Adam Smith et c’est à Donald Rumsfeld - secrétaire d’Etat à la Défense (2001-2006) - que l’ont doit l’application de cette idéologie aux affaires militaires. Sans y changer une seule virgule, la première administration Obama renonçait ainsi aux réponses classiques : les guerres conventionnelles et de contre-insurrection. On assistait alors à des redéploiements élargis dans les zones économiques et stratégiques considérées prioritaires pour les grandes sociétés (armements, aéronautiques, BTP et infrastructures, etc.). Enfin, selon un officier général des Forces spéciales, le Pentagone cherchait à maintenir autant que faire se peut la « clandestinité la plus totale afin de privilégier des campagnes médiatiques et de communication parfaitement maîtrisées ».

En juin 2014, dans une conférence publique tenue à Beyrouth, nous expliquions alors, que cette « non doctrine » militaire s’articulait sur sept piliers : 1) montée en puissance des forces spéciales ; 2) prééminence du renseignement ; 3) extension de la géographie des drones ; 4) choix de la cyber-guerre ; 5) développement d’ « armées de substitution » ; 6) formation et manœuvres avec les partenaires ; et enfin 7) médiatiser et communiquer. Ce dernier pilier chapeaute l’ensemble ! Le plus vieux métier du monde ! Pour qu’elle atteigne ses objectifs, toute opération militaire doit être non seulement comprise mais aussi « partagée » par les opinions publiques du ou des pays qui la mènent. Sont alors appelés en renfort les bataillons de journalistes « embeded » chargés d’expliquer et de diffuser les raisons et le phasage de la « guerre juste », forcément juste. Au hardpower des armées doit s’adjoindre organiquement le softpower -madame Clinton préfère parler de smartpower -, des journalistes, des « experts » et autres « communicants ». Ces sept piliers requièrent, non pas la « sagesse » de Lawrence d’Arabie, mais une transparence imposée, c’est-à-dire opaque, la clandestinité et le secret.

Korbo.Made-in-USA.-18.112013.jpg

Dans le meilleur des mondes VUCA possibles, Dae’ch, Al-Qaïda, Nosra et les autres ne peuvent et ne doivent pas être éradiqués parce qu’ils sont absolument nécessaires à la reconfiguration permanente du « sens », de la « joie » et des « profits » des nouveaux chefs militaires, économiques et politiques du monde. Sur le plan intérieur, les recettes VUCA servent tout aussi bien à déconstruire les frontières nationales, le droit du travail et toute autre loi garante du contrat social des vieilles républiques pour nous convertir aux fluidités multiples d’une mondialisation heureuse où tout devient possible et principalement le retour à l’état de nature où règne, en définitive, la loi du plus fort.

Lorsque notre ami Alain Joxe souligne, à juste titre, que les Etats-Unis ont régulièrement perdu les guerres asymétriques qu’ils ont déclenchés depuis la fin de la Guerre froide, il n’en tire pourtant pas la conclusion ultime : ces défaites apparentes sont en réalité des victoires inestimables pour les stratèges du Pentagone, de Tel-Aviv, de Wall Street, de la City et de Bruxelles. D’un état de non guerre conventionnelle, les délices du monde VUCA nous embarquent dans celui d’une guerre asymétrique généralisée, permanente et nécessaire. 

Richard Labévière, 15 septembre 2015

vendredi, 25 décembre 2015

Pentagon in opstand tegen president Obama om steun voor moslimterroristen

obama-manages-isis.jpg

Pentagon in opstand tegen president Obama om steun voor moslimterroristen

Militaire leiding VS geeft achter rug Obama geheime informatie aan Rusland, Israël en Duitsland

Obama, Saudi Arabië, Turkije en Qatar bewapenden ISIS

Hersh bevestigt dat Turkse president Erdogan Syrië wil inlijven en Ottomaanse Rijk wil herstellen

Seymour Hersh, misschien wel ’s werelds meest gevierde onderzoeksjournalist die onder andere aantoonde dat de gifgasaanval in Damascus in 2013 niet door het leger van president Assad, maar door de door de Westerse-Turkse-Arabische coalitie gesteunde moslimrebellen werd gepleegd, komt met een nieuwe, ronduit verbijsterende onthulling: de militaire topleiders in het Pentagon zijn in het geheim in opstand gekomen tegen president Obama, en blijken zijn bevelen inzake het steunen van islamitische terreurgroepen in Syrië te negeren en zelfs tegen te werken.

Opstand in strijdkrachten VS

De weerstand in het leger tegen Obama kwam in 2013 al tot een uitbarsting toen de president een complete zee- en luchtvloot bij Syrië had verzameld en vast van plan leek om het land plat te bombarderen. Een Russische vloot gecombineerd met briljant diplomatiek optreden van president Putin zorgden er vervolgens voor dat de Amerikanen zich moesten terugtrekken en de Derde Wereldoorlog werd voorkomen.

Tal van lagere en hoge officieren plaatsten toen foto’s van zichzelf op het internet met voor hun hoofd stukken karton met daarop teksten zoals ‘Ik ging niet bij de marine om voor Al-Qaeda te vechten in een Syrische burgeroorlog’. Er waren destijds ook berichten van fel verzet van de hoogste Amerikaanse generaals, die gewoonweg weigerden om de door Obama bevolen aanval op Syrië in gang gezetten.

Hersh onthult nu dat het Pentagon in het geheim inderdaad in opstand is gekomen tegen Obama. Al eerder berichtten we over een gelekt DIA rapport waarin de opkomst van ISIS werd voorspeld als de Amerikanen de rebellen wapens zouden geven om president Assad af te zetten. Het Pentagon wist daarom van meet af aan dat Obama islamitische terreurgroepen bewapende, en dat het zogenaamde ‘Free Syrian Army’ in rook was opgelost.

Geheime info aan Rusland, Israël en Duitsland doorgespeeld

De regering Obama weigerde deze feiten echter onder ogen te zien. Sterker nog: het DIA rapport werd doelbewust als ‘zeer geheim’ geclassificeerd en achter slot en grendel gestopt. Het Pentagon nam vervolgens het onthutsende besluit om het Witte Huis niet langer te vertrouwen en buiten medeweten van de president militaire inlichtingen over de door Obama bewapende jihadisten te verstrekken aan Rusland, Israël en Duitsland.

Deze informatie werd rechtstreeks doorgespeeld aan Assad, die daarmee vervolgens het tij van de burgeroorlog in zijn voordeel wist te keren. Daarmee zorgde hij er vrijwel zeker voor dat Syrië niet volledig werd overgenomen door ISIS.

Pentagon saboteerde Obama’s pro-jihad beleid

Veel hoge Pentagon leiders beseften dus al jaren geleden dat Obama’s beleid in Syrië op een totale ramp zou uitlopen, en ondernamen daarom actie om de doelstellingen van de president te doen mislukken. Het verstrekken van info aan Assad was tevens de beloning voor de cruciale waarschuwing die de Syrische veiligheidsdiensten aan Amerika gaven, en waarmee een enorme Al-Qaeda aanslag op de thuishaven van de Vijfde Vloot in Bahrein kon worden voorkomen.

De Amerikaanse militaire leiding saboteerde vervolgens Obama’s wapenleveranties door de Syrische rebellen doelbewust verouderd materiaal te geven. Saudi Arabië, Turkije en Qatar compenseerden dit echter door ISIS van moderne wapens te voorzien, aldus de hoge Pentagon-bron van Hersh.

Erdogan wil inderdaad Ottomaans Rijk herstellen

De grootste verrassing voor de niet geïnformeerde burger –maar niet voor onze lezers- is wellicht dat Hersh bevestigt dat de Turkse president Erdogan zijn zinnen heeft gezet op Syrië omdat hij het Ottomaanse Rijk wil herstellen. Daarmee streeft hij feitelijk exact hetzelfde doel na als ISIS, dat een groot grensoverschrijdend islamitisch Kalifaat wil oprichten waar ook Europa een onderdeel van moet worden. De huidige migranteninvasie en islamisering van de EU is onderdeel van dat gezamenlijke Turkse/ISIS plan.

Obama en Turken bewapenden ISIS

‘Dit bericht is verbijsterend,’ zegt vaste Infowars verslaggever –en oud topofficial van de regering Reagan- Paul Joseph Watson. ‘Het bevestigt namelijk waarom het Witte Huis van Obama er minstens 15 maanden lang niet in slaagde om ISIS te verslaan. In zijn obsessie om Assad af te zetten heeft Obama welbewust ISIS bewapend, en samen met Turkije de terreurorganisatie geholpen om het Kalifaat op te bouwen.’

Hoge officieren in het Pentagon komen nu ook openlijk in opstand tegen Obama’s even krankzinnige als verwoestende beleid, dat alleen al in Syrië aan minstens 200.000 mensen het leven het gekost. En mocht Obama’s gedoodverfde opvolger Hillary Clinton eind volgend jaar tot president worden gekozen, dan zal het Pentagon vermoedelijk ook haar bevelen negeren.

2016: Toekomst van het Midden Oosten, vrij Westen en de wereld staan op het spel

‘2016 lijkt om tal van redenen een cruciaal jaar te worden,’ besluit Watson. ‘Voor de toekomst van het Midden Oosten, de toekomst van de radicale islam en de toekomst van de vrije wereld. Alles staat op het spel.’

Xander

(1) Infowars (/ YouTube)

mercredi, 27 mai 2015

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool"

USISISzzz.jpg

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad

By

Zero Hedge

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world’s stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world’s terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the “straight to beheading YouTube clip” purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria’s president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant – and belligerent – source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.

The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama’s new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that “such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa.”

But it’s one thing to speculate; it’s something entirely different to have hard proof.

And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this.

That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governmentsdeliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.” 

And not just that: as we reported last week, now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people’s heads of in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, sophisticated weapons in the region in order to “modernize” and “replenish” the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq.

But that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) is clear to everyone by now. What wasn’t clear is just how the US predetermined the current course of events in the middle east.

Now, thanks to the following declassified report, we have a far better understanding of not only how current events in the middle east came to be, but what America’s puppermaster role leading up to it all, was. 

From Nafeez Ahmed: Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’, originally posted in Medium.

Hypocrisy

The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.

The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

The West’s Islamists

The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.

Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”

The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”

The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.

In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”

The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government.”

In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’).

‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity

In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”:

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.”

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.

Such a quasi-state entity will provide:

“… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.”

The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.

In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists.”

The DIA did not respond to request for comment.

USAISISdaeshusa_1_zpsbd80b890.jpg

Strategic asset for regime-change

Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:

“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”

According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:

“US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.”

Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report — ?an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East?—?points out that the DIA document “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.”

The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency?—?“there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The report demonstrates that:

“The establishment of a ‘Salafist Principality’ in Eastern Syria is ‘exactly’ what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as ‘the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey’) in order to weaken the Assad government.”

The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely?—?but nevertheless strategically useful?—?blowback from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.”

Complicity

Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.

The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.

However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.

Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.

As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion”?—?namely, the emergence of ISIS?—?“but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”

Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:

“This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.”

She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.”

This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were:

“… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”

Divide and rule

Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.

US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.

But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates?—?that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.

The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report.

The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.

The RAND report confirmed that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level.”

The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”

The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.

The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.

In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.

Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.

Reprinted with permission from Zero Hedge.

lundi, 01 avril 2013

US’ Eurasian Objectives and the Afghan War

 afghanistan-winding-down_jpeg2-1280x960.jpg

US’ Eurasian Objectives and the Afghan War

By Salman RAFI SHEIKH (Pakistan)

Ex: http://orientalreview.org/  

Since 19th century, super powers have been ‘playing’ the Great Game in the region lying across Central, Southern and South-western Asia. During that ‘Game’ Afghanistan, which strategically connects these geographical segments of Asia, has historically been the heartland for British and Russian manoeuvres and struggle for control over Central Asia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And in the present timeframe, with the energy resource becoming one of the major contending factors in major powers’ rivalry, importance of Central Asia has increased further due to its energy resource potential. However, gaining access to those resources and controlling their export routes is not possible for any extra-regional power without having strong military presence in the region. Dominant military presence in Afghanistan is, therefore, regarded by the Americans as vitally important for actualising US’ interests. It provides the platform through which US can threaten its potential regional rivals as well as dominate gas and oil export routes emanating from Eurasian landmass. Also, Afghanistan lies along a proposed pipe line route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean; therefore, its importance in US’ 21st century grand strategy is critical. To be realistic, therefore, US’ invasion of Afghanistan has to be analysed from the perspective of US’ geo-strategic and geo-energy objectives, rather than from the US’ projected perspective of ‘elimination of global terrorists’. This short paper presents an analysis of US’ 21st century grand objectives as well as importance of Afghanistan in the attainment of those objectives.

The breakdown of USSR provided US with new avenues of rich energy reservoirs in what is commonly known as Russia’s “under-belly” or the Central Asian region. Since then, this region has been a scene of political and economic manoeuvres, rivalry, disturbance, conflict, and struggle to maintain control over its vast energy resources for long-term geo-strategic and geo-economic objectives. Control over the energy resources of this region can possibly enable the US to manipulate its relations with energy-starving countries like India, China, Pakistan, Japan, other East Asian countries and also the European countries in its favour. In other words, control over this region provides the avenues of both geo-strategic and geo-economic domination not only over this region but beyond it as well.  It is thus energy-resources, which provide the logic to understand US’ policy of politically dominating the entire region through control over Afghanistan, which provides the critically important base for dominating the land route for energy supply and control over Eurasian region, as also dominating the proposed Silk-Route. Thus, Afghan war is not about the so-called terrorists or Al-Qaeda, nor is it about ridding the world of dangers of terrorism; rather it has a lot to do with US’ long-term objectives of dominating the world energy resources. It is thus here that the actual significance of US’ invasion of Afghanistan lies which requires proper understanding in order to determine the dynamics of the ongoing war in the region.

SILKROAD

The attack on Afghanistan came in 2001 but preparation for the war had already started in 1999 when the Silk Road Strategy Act[i] was passed by the US congress. This Act outlines the basic policy approach of US for the acquisition of energy in the Eurasian region. The section six of the Act provides the basic logic of US’ policy towards the region. It declares that the region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia has enough energy resources to meet US’ own needs as well as reduce its dependence on the volatile region of Persian Gulf.[ii] The Act was amended in 2006 which then declared energy security as the prime reason for the US to stay in Afghanistan. Afghanistan got the pivotal position because it was the only country in the region which provided the US with a pretext to invade. The Western saga of Taliban’s misrule and their refusal to hand over Bin laden helped preparing the Western mind to attack and dismantle the Taliban rule. On the contrary, it is ironical to note that no reference was made to Al-Qaeda or Bin laden whatsoever in the 2006 amendment of the Act. Terrorism was not declared in that Act as the reason for staying in Afghanistan. Although other policy statements[iii] do declare elimination of terrorism as one of the main objectives of US, the marked discrepancy between the policies stated and the actions taken creates a contradiction in US’ entire anti-terrorist and anti-Taliban agenda, which gives this war a peculiar colour of political manipulation, resource exploitation and regional domination. The Silk Road Strategy Act, which outlines the main framework of US’ economic and energy objectives, also indirectly paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan. Without having a strong foothold in the region, the US could not have been in any position to control energy resources or trade routes. Similarly, without any strong foothold, it could not have been possible for US to dominate the entire region extending from the Black Sea to the Caspian, and also Central, Western and Southwestern and Eastern regions of Asia. Afghanistan was not only a week country, at least in US’ calculations of Afghanistan’s power potential, but was also located at the center of the region which the US wanted to dominate politically, militarily and economically by controlling the export routes of Oil and Gas. Military presence in Afghanistan­­­­­­­­­­ was thus to serve regional objectives of the US.  The following sketch would suffice to illustrate this point:

Geo-spacial, geostrategic and geo-energy importance of Afghanistan for the USA. (Red bold arrows showing the sphere of influence the US planned to establish in the region with strong military presence in Afghanistan.)

Geo-spacial, geostrategic and geo-energy importance of Afghanistan for the USA.
(Red bold arrows showing the sphere of influence the US planned to establish in the region with strong military presence in Afghanistan.)

The successful implementation of Silk Road Act required huge military presence in the region as well as controlled militarization of the Eurasian region as a means to securing control over oil and energy reserves and protecting pipeline routes and trade corridors. The militarization was to be largely against Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan. In other words, US’ actual objectives include not only geo-energy, but also geo-economic and geo-strategic. And achievement of these objectives required removal of the Taliban rule from Afghanistan and installation of favourable rulers.  This was and is, in US’ calculations, the possible way of achieving three-fold objectives. Since oil and gas are not merely commercial products, control over territory is an essential component of strategic superiority over potential rivals.

The Afghan War is thus as much a war of securing territory to outmanoeuvre the regional rivals such as China, Russia and Iran as to ensure energy security and secured trade routes. In other words, it was a calculated means of maintaining the status of the only global power status by keeping a check on potential rivals by exploiting their weak points. Conflict in Afghanistan has created conditions for the US to enhance its military presence in the entire region. The Taliban phenomenon itself was meant to facilitate, albeit indirectly, the US in building military bases; for, the Central Asian States have a history of rivalry with Taliban and face the threat of their spreading radical version of Islam in those States.[i]  In other words, the Afghan War is not about elimination of terrorists; the Taliban are not Al-Qaeda. The origin of the Taliban can be found in the Soviet-Afghan war. It was USA itself which fully assisted the Afghan Mujahidin fighting the Soviets out. At that time, the interest of the US and that of the Afghans were in considerable convergence. But, after the end of War, situation began to change, and so did US’ own policy towards Taliban, who themselves originated under the leadership of Mullah Omar after the war and joined by local Afghans and ex-Mujahidin commanders. The US’ policy took a visible change in 1997 with the appointment of Madeleine Albright as the Secretary of State, who openly criticized Taliban during her 1997 visit to Pakistan. She went to the extent of declaring them as ‘medieval Islamic fundamentalist curds.’ What caused this change of policy was, besides other factors, Taliban’s marked’ insensitivity’ to US’ interests. When Taliban were establishing themselves in Afghanistan, the US hoped that they would serve US’ interests in Afghanistan, which included construction of Oil and Gas pipelines for US oil companies (UNOCAL and Delta) connecting energy resources of the Central Asian States to the world market[ii] as later stated in the Silk Road Strategy Act, through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taliban’s refusal to accommodate US’ interest should not be so surprising given the peculiar psychological make-up of Pashtun and their historical experiences with foreign powers. Thus, the Taliban were/are local Afghans who do not want to be occupied by any foreign power. Considering the Afghan psyche and behaviour pattern; their past and historical experiences; the geographical terrain of the region and their culture, it is but natural to conclude that Afghans are too difficult to be subjugated by force. It is history which testifies and provides the undisputed evidence that the Afghans are known for maintaining their independence and resisting foreign occupation with full force.[iii] As such, the Taliban are not terrorists as is projected by the USA and the Western media. They are victim of US’ grand strategy which includes toppling those regimes which do not prove to be sensitive enough to protecting US interests.[iv]  The US invaded and toppled Taliban from their rule in order to pave way for their long term presence in the region. Since this invasion and occupation was against the psyche of the Afghans, strong resistance was inevitable. The Afghans have not only been resisting but their resistance is increasing every day, making it extremely difficult for the US and its allies to establish permanent military presence in the region.

The Geo-Strategic and geo-political aspect of the Afghan war as highlighted above, and necessity for USA of toppling the Taliban regime are closely related to the geo-energy aspect. Control over flow of energy resources in the region with strong military presence in Afghanistan was the calculated means of the US to manipulate regional geopolitics. Most of South Asian and East Asian countries are energy starving, while Northern, Western and Central Asian countries are energy producers. The aim of USA was to have maximum number of energy producers in its axis to manipulate its relations with energy starving states such as Pakistan, India, China, Japan etc. in its favour on the one hand, and on the other hand, competing other powerful energy producers such as Russia and Iran. In other words, as have observed Fouskas and Gokay, control over energy was the key to US’ global hegemony, keeping check over rivals, establishing new sphere of influence, and integration of the central Asian region into the US led global economy;[v] and Afghanistan provided the key place to execute this strategy.

While implementation of Silk Road Strategy Act required militarization of the Eurasian heartland through Afghanistan territory, it also required construction of pipeline routes to ensure security of energy flow. The rationale to pipeline projects was provided in the said act and in National Security Strategy of 1999. The document of the NSS thus stated the rationale:

We are focusing particular attention on investment in Caspian energy resources and their export from the Caucasus region to world markets, thereby expanding and diversifying world energy supplies and promoting prosperity in the region.[vi]

It is in this context that the US considered it very important to manipulate the vast energy resources of the Eurasian region. Considering form US’ viewpoint, economic dependence of the region on the security umbrella provided by the USA must be maintained in order to strengthen its regional domination and also global reach. For providing that security umbrella, USA needed to build a permanent military strike force in the region with strong and well-equipped military bases in Afghanistan. The aim of these bases is not to ‘dismantle and disrupt’ terrorists; for, there are no terrorists, as defined by USA, in Afghanistan. The aim of these air bases, given the critical geo-strategic and geo-energy importance of the region, is to enable USA to be in a position to prevent any other power from dominating the energy rich region, and also take timely and swift action against any potential threat to US’ interests.

An analysis of US’ strategy of building military bases in Afghanistan would also augment the argument that the Afghan war was/is not about dismantling terrorism but about Oil and Gas. Since its occupation of Afghanistan in 2002, USA has been building military bases, following a systematic plan. During his visit to Afghanistan in 2004, US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld announced building nine bases in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia. These nine bases were in addition to already installed three bases in the wake of US’ occupation of Afghanistan. These bases were/are meant to protect both geo-strategic and geo-energy interests of USA. William Engdahl has analysed US’ strategy in detail. To him, the Pentagon built its first three bases at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul, the US’ main military logistics center; Kandahar Air Field, in southern Afghanistan; and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand, the largest US base in Afghanistan, was constructed a mere 100 kilometers from the border of Iran, and within striking distance of Russia as well as China.[vii] Secondly, Afghanistan lies across the proposed oil pipeline route which is to transfer oil from Eurasia to the Indian Ocean. As a matter of fact, most of the US bases built in Afghanistan lie across the proposed pipeline route (TAPI) in order to ensure its security against all odds.[viii]

The US fully recognizes the importance of Central Asia’s energy resources and the economic possibilities they offer in world markets and in the region itself. Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, said in 2007: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan,” and to link South and Central Asia “so that energy can flow to the south.” In December 2009, George Krol, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, told Congress that one US priority in Central Asia is “to increase development and diversification of the region’s energy resources and supply routes.” He said, “Central Asia plays a vital role in our Afghanistan strategy.”[ix]

oil-TAPI-pipeline

In case of Afghanistan, it is the case of TAPI pipeline that matters much. It is the pipeline that is being planned to bring energy from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean via Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Factually, it was this pipeline that triggered armed conflict in the region. Negotiations with Taliban over the proposed pipeline route failed in 2001, just before incidents of 9/11. Taliban’s refusal to accommodate US’ interests proved to be a last nail in the coffin of Taliban’s regime. They were ousted and the way was supposed to have been cleared for the construction of TAPI pipeline, and the heads of the participant States started meetings to finalize the project. The agreement was finally signed in 2008.[x]  Before US’ invasion of Afghanistan and September 11 attacks, US’ company UNOCAL had already testified to the congress that the pipeline cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have international financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements.[xi]  Here a question arises as to what USA would have gained out of this pipeline project? The answer to this can best be given by bringing to limelight the significance of Mackinder’s Eurasian heartland. The pipeline would undercut the geo-political significance of U’ backed other pipeline routes such as BTC and Trans-Caspian, and enhance US’ control over energy export routes. In US’ calculations, if it could control energy export routes with strong military presence in Afghanistan and providing security umbrella, it could control energy resources of the Eurasian landmass, and ultimately control the Eurasian Heartland as well.[xii] When studied this issue of TAPI in line with earlier quoted Silk Road Strategy Act, the picture becomes quite clear to us that energy-reservoirs, being US’ primary interests in the region, have to be under its control for its long term geo-strategic and geo-economic interests, and maintaining hegemony.

The above analysis of the aspects of the Afghan shows that US’ invasion of Afghanistan is not the result of any terrorist group’s agenda of creating disruption in the world. It was primarily the result of the perennial power tussle going on between powerful states in the world politics. It is a fact that oil and gas have been discovered in other ares of the word such as Venezuela, Mexico, West Africa, but it is getting the same attention. It is so because those areas are strategically not so important as the Eurasian Heartland is.[xiii] Presence of world’s some most powerful nuclear powered countries, biggest economies and ancient trade routes, all add to the importance of this region in international politics. US’ both war-time strategy (invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, building bases) and peace-time strategy (building pipeline routes) serve its grand strategy in the 21st century of maintaining hegemony. A careful eye will detect that all of these strategies have a common purpose of enhancing American political control over the Eurasian landmass and its hydrocarbon resources. The intensified drive to global hegemony and growing dependence of economic prosperity on oil and gas have been the prime moving factors behind the US’ grand strategy for the Eurasian region, which included invasion of Afghanistan and establishing permanent military presence in the region. Although the current situation in Afghanistan appears negative for USA, nevertheless, these were the stated objectives of USA and Afghanistan was to be instrumental in achieving those goals. As such, the war was not about ‘disrupting and dismantling’ terrorists, it was and is about gas, oil and maintaining power, or as in words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a power that dominated Eurasia would dominate two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia……what happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.[xiv]  The war thus was not to maintain a balance of power but in favour of USA against its major rivals, most of them lying in the Eurasian landmass.

ENS NOTES:

[i] Marker Menkiszak, “Russia’s Afghan Problem: The Russian Federation and the Afghan Problem Since 2001.” Center For Eastern Studies 38 (2011): 53

[ii] Ahsan ur Rehman Khan, “Taliban as an Element of the Evolving Geopolitics: Realities, Potential, and possibilities.” Institute of regional Studies, Islamabad 19 (2000-2001): 98-99

[iii]  Ahsan ur Rehman Khan, Moorings and Geo-Politics of the Turbulence in Pashtun Tribal Areas Spreading to other Parts of Pakistan ( Lahore: Ashraf Saleem Publishers, 2011)  14-16

The Author has dealt with Pashtun psyche and behaviour pattern, as also other factors impacting their peculiar mindset in detail in his book cited here.

[iv] Emre Iseri, “The US Grand Strategy and the Eurasian Heartland in the Twenty-first Century.” Geopolitics 14 (2009), 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650040802578658 (Accessed 1 March 2013)

[v] V. K. Fouskas and B.Gökay, “The New American Imperialism: Bush’s War on Terror and Blood for Oil.” Westport, CT: Praeger Security International (2005):  29

 [vi] “A National Security Strategy for a New Century” Washington, DC: The White House (1999): 33

 [vii] William Engdahl, “Geopolitics Behind the Phoney U.S. War in Afghanistan”  The Market Oracle  (2009)

 [ix] John Foster, Afghanistan, the TAPI Pipeline, and Energy GeopoliticsJournal of Energy Security (2010) http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=233:afghanistan-the-tapi-pipeline-and-energy-geopolitics&catid=103:energysecurityissuecontent&Itemid=358 (Accessed 6 April 2012)

[x] Ibid

[xi] Ibid

 [xii] Emre Iseri, “The US Grand Strategy and the Eurasian Heartland in the Twenty-first Century.” Geopolitics 14 (2009), 19 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650040802578658 (Accessed 1 March 2013)

 [xiii] J. Nanay, ‘Russia and the Caspian Sea Region’, in J. H. Kalicki and D. L. Goldwyn (eds.), Energy & Security: Towards a New Foreign Policy Strategy (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2005), 142.

[xiv]  Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Importance (Basic Books: New York 1997), 223.

dimanche, 03 février 2013

The Pacific Ocean: The Pentagon Next «Human Terrain» Battlefield

pacific-ocaen-map.jpg

The Pacific Ocean: The Pentagon Next «Human Terrain» Battlefield

Wayne MADSEN

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org/

 

The Pentagon planners and their paid anthropologist shills are gearing up for the Pentagon’s next battle: the one for the Pacific that will ensure that the island nations that dot the vast maritime expanse will remain a part of the Anglo-American sphere of influence and not become part of a «Chinese lake».

The Pacific Ocean has been a favorite stomping ground for U.S. government-financed anthropologists ever since Margaret Mead ‘s 1928 treatise on the Samoan people, Coming of Age in Samoa, laid the groundwork for the intelligence-related anthropological study of the peoples of the Pacific Ocean by the U.S. military and intelligence services. Mead later became a researcher for the CIA-connected RAND Corporation and became a supporter of CIA funding of anthropologic surveys and studies via laundered academic research grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

USAID / CIA/Special Operations projects with names like Phoenix, Prosyms, Sympatico, and Camelot used anthropologists and social scientists to reconnoiter targeted tribal areas in South Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, Colombia, and Chile to determine how U.S. Special Forces and intelligence agents could use indigenous peoples to further American military goals. The operations in the cases of Phoenix in South Vietnam and Prosyms in Indonesia resulted in genocide on a massive scale…

Today, the military’s tribal and native peoples targeting programs fall under the nomenclature of «human terrain systems» or HTS. Brought back to life in Afghanistan and Iraq, these genocidal programs now have their eyes on the Pacific in order to gear up for what the Pentagon and Langley planners believe is an inevitable war with China.

It is fitting, therefore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are now looking for up to 15,000 acres of land to lease on American Samoa. The U.S. military wants to establish a major training base on American Samoa for at least five years and probably longer. The base is to provide 24-hour road access that will permit 60 full days of training per year. The Army also wants the base to permit the use of pyrotechnic and blank ammunition during daytime and nighttime training. It is certain that the U.S. is looking at building a simulated rural and village tropical environment for the use of U.S. and future «coalition of the willing» armies to practice battling an enemy in the Pacific region. That «enemy» is China.

The United States obviously foresees the Pacific as a future battleground between American and its allied forces and China for control of the important trade routes that crisscross the vast maritime region. Not since the U.S. military campaign against Japan during World War II has the Pacific seen such an American military projection of power.

The decision by the Obama administration to «pivot» its military forces into Asia and the Pacific has brought about a strong response from China, which sees itself as the ultimate target for the increased U.S. military presence. China’s ambassador to Australia Chen Yuming called the stationing of 2500 U.S. Marines in Darwin an «affront» and a Cold War containment policy toward China.

The establishment of a U.S. military training base on American Samoa follows Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first ever attendance by a U.S. Secretary of State of a Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) summit in Rarotonga, Cook Islands on August 31, 2012. It was the first such visit to the Cook Islands and underscored America’s decision to maintain its stranglehold over the small Pacific island nations while at the same time beefing up its military forces in the region.

The United States and its two Pacific overseers – Australia and New Zealand –- are attempting to cement their neo-colonialist hegemony over the Pacific states, which are independent in name only. Enter the Human Terrain practitioners from the Pentagon and CIA to keep the Pacific islanders divided. Clinton’s participation in the PIF summit is aimed at not only maintaining the status quo but in promoting the rivalries between Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians among the island states. The United States, having virtual ownership of the quasi-independent Micronesian nations of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands, as well as total control over the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Marianas, can use its influence over Micronesians to play them off against the other two major ethnic groups,. They are the Melanesian Spearhead Group of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and the New Caledonia (Kanaky) liberation front and the Polynesian Leaders Group of Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, French Polynesia, as well as the intelligence eyes and ears of Washington, American Samoa. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand can use their Human terrain System knowledge of ethnic rivalries in the Pacific to ensure that China is kept out of the area.

Part of the strategy relies on Taiwan’s «checkbook» diplomacy to maintain Taiwanese rather than Chinese embassies and aid missions in the small island states. There are currently Taiwanese embassies in Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, and Kiribati. Among these, Nauru, Solomon Islands, and Kiribati switched their recognition back to Taiwan after opening up diplomatic relations with China. Kiribati came under pressure after it decided to allow China to build a missile tracking station on south Tarawa. The U.S. believed the China Space Telemetry Tracking Station was going to spy on the «Star Wars II» activity at the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site in the Kwajalein Atoll of the Marshall Islands. The Marshallese on the atoll are under constant surveillance by well-armed U.S. security personnel. In 2004, Vanuatu switched its recognition back to China from Taiwan after Prime Minister Serge Vohor paid a secret visit to Taiwan and was ejected from office in a vote of no confidence. Vohor actually punched the Chinese ambassador after Vohor returned from Taiwan. Such incidents in the Pacific Islands have been known to set off riots between opposing political parties and ethnic groups. The Pentagon will use such politico-ethnic tinderboxes as a secret weapon against China.

The CIA, Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), and New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service (NZSIS) have programs to undermine South Pacific governments that establish close relations with Beijing. However, the Human Terrain operatives have gone further. Aware of the animosity that poor Pacific Islanders have toward local successful Chinese businessmen, the bought—and-paid for anthropologists have stirred up riots, especially in Solomon Islands and Tonga, to marginalize China’s influence in the region. There are contingency plans to foment riots against ethnic Chinese in Fiji, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea. The CIA’s Operation Prosyms in Indonesia relied on longstanding animosity between Muslim Indonesians and ethnic Chinese to stoke riots against the Chinese in the aftermath of the 1965 CIA coup against President Sukarno. The mayhem resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 ethnic Chinese and a severance of relations between the CIA-installed Suharto government and China. President Obama’s anthropologist mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, played a crucial role in Prosyms. Mrs. Dunham’s son appears prepared to reenact anti-Chinese pogroms in the islands of the Pacific.

It is clear that the U.S. military training in American Samoa will be used to train Pacific Islander mercenaries, many of whom, such as Marshall Islanders, American Samoans, and Guamanians already serve in the U.S. military, to train young men from impoverished Kiribati, Micronesia, Samoa, and Fiji. Fijian and Tongan mercenaries, battle-hardened from Western campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions, are also available to supplement the U.S. Pacific Command’s training complex on American Samoa. If Fiji’s military-led government , which has been the subject of diplomatic sanctions by Australia and New Zealand, continues to get close to China and North Korea, these Fijian mercenaries could see coup d’état duty on behalf of the CIA, ASIO, and NZSIS in their homeland of Fiji. And the diplomats of the small Chinese embassy in Nuku’alofa, Tonga have witnessed how fast the fury of local Tongans can be turned on the Chinese business community. These blood-soaked scenarios all figure heavily into Pentagon HTS plans for the Pacific.

The United States will continue to keep the Pacific Islands within its vast gulag to prevent the extension of Chinese influence. Today, Pacific Islanders are faced with a virtual «Berlin Wall» that keeps Pacific Islanders confined to their own islands while outsiders, like Chinese and Russians, are kept out. The method by which Washington, Canberra, and Wellington have created airline and sea transit monopolies and transit visa requirements means that Samoans from the Independent State of Samoa cannot visit nearby American Samoa without a special permit. And the U.S. Department of Homeland Security decides who will receive special permits and transit visas, including for those traveling on diplomatic passports. Any scheduled airline that connects any of the islands via American Samoa, Guam, or Hawaii requires a U.S. transit visa and that entails invasive interviews by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel.

There is a reason why so many negotiations and agreement to establish the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership have been secret. As the title indicates, the TPP, as it is known, is a «strategic» trade bloc, which means it also has a military dimension. In essence, it is no different than the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere established by Imperial Japan during World War II. The United States, not wanting to be viewed as starting the bloc but wanting it to be a replacement for the Cold War military alliance, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), sat in the background while New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei, and Chile signed up as charter members in 2005. As more nations joined, the TTP’s military profile became clearer. The countries that signed up to the TPP were all being groomed for the anti-China military bloc for the Pacific: Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Vietnam, Peru, and the United States signed on. Japan, Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Colombia, Costa Rica, Laos, and Taiwan later expressed an interest in joining the TPP. The eastward blockade of China became clear. The United States already had existing military alliances with six of the other ten TPP member nations. From Darwin, Australia and Subic Bay, Philippines to Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam and the U.S. built Mataveri Airport on Easter Island (Rapa Nui), the U.S. was delineating the borders of its own Asia-Pacific Sphere and a line over which China would be warned not to cross.

Mrs. Clinton may have arrived in Rarotonga last year amid waves and smiles but her sinister plans for the Pacific region have more to do with using the Pacific Islanders for cannon fodder in what Washington expects to be a coming regional war with China.
 

samedi, 28 janvier 2012

La nouvelle stratégie du Pentagone

Pentagone-vue-aerienne-washington-usa-defense.jpg

Andrea Perrone:

La nouvelle stratégie du Pentagone

Le secrétaire américain à la Défense, Léon Panetta, retire deux des quatre brigades américaines d’Europe et se prépare à les transférer vers la zone du Pacifique

Le gouvernement d’Obama va retirer deux des quatre brigades de l’armée américaine déployées en Europe. Le but de ce retrait est évident: épargner quelque 487 milliards de dollars sur le budget de la défense au cours des dix prochaines années, en demandant aux Européens de payer la différence, comme dans le cas du bouclier anti-missiles que Washington a imposé au Vieux Continent, tout en déplaçant les troupes américaines vers la région d’Asie-Pacifique.

La nouvelle a été annoncée par le secrétaire à la Défense, Léon Panetta, qui a également fait connaître la décision américaine de retirer environ 7000 militaires sur les 81.000 hommes que comptent les forces d’occupation en Europe, tout cela dans le cadre de la nouvelle stratégie de la défense et dans celui des mesures d’austérité qui frappent aussi le budget du Pentagone.

“Lors des colloques que nous avons eus avec les Européens, nous avons expliqué qu’il s’agira dorénavant d’une présence américaine selon un principe de rotation, par lequel on mènera les futures manoeuvres”, a précisé le chef du Pentagone, qui se faisait interviewer à Fort Bliss au Texas. “En réalité —a-t-il ajouté— nous ne verrons plus beaucoup de soldats américains en Europe, vu les dispositions prises dans le cadre de la nouvelle stratégie, parce que les brigades qui y sont en principe casernées combattent en réalité en Afghanistan et ne sont donc pas présentes. Nous aurons donc deux brigades complètes en Europe, plus une présence plus importante mais selon le principe de la rotation”. D’après ce que nous rapporte le “New York Times”, les Etats-Unis retireront encore une autre brigade d’Allemagne, au fur et à mesure que se concrétisera la nouvelle stratégie et que les opérations se focaliseront sur la zone de l’Asie-Pacifique. Déjà en 2004, le gouvernement de Bush avait demandé à ce que le nombre de brigades de combat en Europe soit réduit à deux mais, l’an dernier, le gouvernement d’Obama avait décidé tout de même d’en maintenir trois.

Obama est donc revenu en quelque sorte sur ses pas et a décidé de ne plus laisser qu’une seule brigade en Allemagne et une autre en Italie, notamment la 173ème Brigade aéroportée, basée à Vicenza.

Le redimensionnement des brigades américaines installées en Europe s’inscrit bel et bien dans le plan du Pentagone de réduire l’armée: des 560.000 militaires qu’elle compte actuellement, elle devra n’en conserver que 490.000, selon les dispositions prises par la nouvelle stratégie de la défense qui requiert des forces plus réduites, plus rapides et plus agiles; en outre, on sait déjà que les forces armées américaines, dans un futur imminent, focaliseront leurs efforts sur les régions asiatiques pour contrebalancer une Chine en croissance rapide et constante, une Chine qui est en train d’investir dans les sous-marins, les avions de chasse et les missiles de précision. Le redimensionnement des deux brigades conduira à une réduction d’environ dix à quinze mille hommes sur les 80.000 présents actuellement, tous services compris, sur le théâtre européen. Le gouvernement d’Obama, souligne le “Washington Post”, a choisi cette option parce qu’elle est susceptible de générer moins de protestations au Congrès que si l’on avait opté pour une réduction des bases militaires aux Etats-Unis mêmes, car cela aurait eu des répercussions sur les économies locales qui se sont développées autour des bases.

Panetta n’a toutefois pas mentionné lesquelles des quatre brigades, actuellement déployées en Europe, le Pentagone allait réellement retirer mais, dans le passé, les autorités militaires américaines avaient élaboré des plans pour que soient retirées les 170ème et 172ème brigades d’infanterie, casernées en Allemagne à Baumholder et Grafenwöhr. Le responsable de la Défense n’a pas davantage parlé du calendrier de ce redéploiement ni expliqué si les unités rappelées d’Europe rentreraient dans les bases américaines ou seraient complètement rendues inactives.

Le Général Mike Hertling, commandant l’armée américaine en Europe, a précisé “qu’il y aura davantage de possibilités pour ces forces de recevoir leur instruction et de participer à des manoeuvres communes avec nos alliés européens”. Le général a ensuite déclaré être “optimiste”, et qu’il croyait que “la nouvelle approche contribuera à renforcer les alliances et les forces”. Mais il n’a pas spécifié quelles unités de l’armée seront impliquées dans le changement.

La nouvelle stratégie de Washington paraît fort semblable à celle décidée en 2001 par le Président républicain de l’époque, George W. Bush, pour pouvoir mener à bien les invasions de l’Afghanistan et de l’Irak. Mais avec une différence: à l’époque, Bush avait augmenté le budget de la Défense tandis qu’Obama a l’intention de le réduire. Toutefois le retrait des troupes américaines annoncé par Obama s’inscrit dans le plan qu’avait exposé Hillary Rodham Clinton au courant du mois d’octobre dernier dans les pages de la revue “Foreign Policy”. Il s’agissait de renforcer le contrôle de la région d’Asie-Pacifique dans le but de faire pièce à la croissance économique et militaire du Dragon chinois. Les présidents américains se succèdent au fil du temps mais les finalités de l’Empire “Stars and Stripes” demeurent invariablement les mêmes.

Andrea PERRONE.

( a.perrone@rinascita.eu )

(article paru dans “Rinascita”, Rome, 14 janvier 2012; http://www.rinascita.eu ).

mercredi, 10 février 2010

La guerre "propre" d'Obama

obama-speaks-to-troop.jpg

 

Ferdinando CALDA :

 

La guerre « propre » d’Obama

 

La nouvelle stratégie du ministre Gates prévoit des opérations plus secrètes, des raids par drones et des financements à accorder aux « Etats faibles »

 

C’est une guerre différente que l’administration Obama a l’intention de mener contre le terrorisme et les ennemis des Etats-Unis. Elle ne coûtera pas moins cher, vu que le plan présenté ces jours-ci par le président ne s’avère que très légèrement moins onéreux que ceux présentés les deux années précédentes par son prédécesseur. Mais, une chose est certaine, la guerre envisagée par Obama sera différente de celle envisagée par Bush. La nouvelle stratégie mise au point par le ministre de la défense Robert Gates vise surtout l’augmentation des opérations spéciales et secrètes, l’utilisation à grande échelle d’avions sans pilote et une plus grande attention aux problèmes des Etats dits « faibles », comme le Yémen et la Somalie, considérés comme refuges sûrs pour les hommes d’Al Qaeda. Dans les grandes lignes, Gates a souligné la nécessité d’abandonner la politique antérieure, héritée de la Guerre Froide, qui demandait aux forces armées de se préparer à combattre simultanément en deux régions du monde, par exemple le Proche Orient et la péninsule coréenne. Robert Gates demande maintenant de remplacer cette stratégie par une nouvelle qui soit capable d’affronter divers conflits mineurs dans toutes les parties du monde à la fois. Les lignes directrices de ce réaménagement stratégique sont décrites dans la « Quadriennal Defence Review » (QDR), le rapport trimestriel du Pentagone, présenté fin janvier. Le texte indique comme priorité actuelle pour les forces armées américaines de « reprendre la prééminence dans les conflits actuels » et de répondre à la nécessité de « démanteler les réseaux terroristes » en Afghanistan et en Irak.

 

Ce document nous apprend également que les financements des « Opérations Spéciales » augmenteront de presque 6% pour atteindre un budget de 6,3 milliards de dollars ; le nombre de soldats d’élite passera à 2800, permettant ainsi de renforcer les capacités de mener des « guerres irrégulières ». On prévoit également une augmentation, dans les zones de guerres, des avions sans pilote : leur nombre passera de 37 à 67 au cours des deux prochaines années. En outre, le Pentagone a l’intention de consacrer plus d’un milliard de dollars à un fond qui devra distribuer cette somme entre les commandants locaux en Afghanistan, afin de tenter de diminuer le soutien qu’ils pourraient apporter aux talibans et d’augmenter les appuis qu’ils pourraient accorder au gouvernement de Kaboul. Cette stratégie, on le devine, cherche à « acheter » la fidélité des chefs de tribu en Afghanistan et reçoit d’ores et déjà l’appui des principaux alliés des Etats-Unis.

 

Pour 2011, le plan prévoit une attention particulière pour divers pays, tel le Yémen, que Washington considère importants pour la sécurité nationale. Les experts du Pentagone se rappellent que l’attentat raté du 25 décembre dernier contre un avion volant vers Detroit avait été préparé par un Nigérian qui aurait été recruté par un chef d’Al Qaeda résidant au Yémen. Pour cette raison, le plan demande d’augmenter les financements au bénéfice du principal programme public d’entraînement et d’équipement des forces de sécurité d’un pays comme le Yémen : le budget passerait de 350 millions de dollars à 500 millions. Pour ce qui concerne le Yémen en particulier, les fonctionnaires américains ont fait savoir que le Département d’Etat et l’Agence américaine pour le développement international sont prêts a augmenter les financements au bénéfice du gouvernement de Sanaa : le budget passerait de 67,3 millions de dollars, chiffre de l’an passé, à 106,6 millions de dollars, somme qui devrait être dépensée pour accroître la sécurité dans le pays. Par ailleurs, on sait que, depuis quelques mois, Washington a augmenté son « assistance » au gouvernement yéménite, en enregistrant des images satellitaires et en pratiquant des interceptions téléphoniques au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Il s’agit de toute évidence d’organiser des raids ou de perpétrer des bombardements « sélectifs » dans le pays. Si l’on prend acte des nouvelles directives énoncées par le Pentagone,  on pourra dire, de fait, que la guerre d’Obama sera caractérisée par des opérations spéciales et secrètes, par des raids de drones et par une ingérence accrue dans les pays étrangers. En définitive, il s’agit d’une stratégie plus discrète et plus « propre » qui, on s’en doute, servira à réduire les pertes subies par les forces armées américaines. Voilà à quoi sert un Président « pacifiste ».

 

Ferdinando CALDA.

(article paru dans « Rinascita », Rome, 3 février 2010 ; trad.. franc. : Robert Steuckers).

dimanche, 11 octobre 2009

Il bilancio occulto della "difesa" americana

pentagono

A fine giugno, Mother Jones ha pubblicato un’approfondita analisi sul bilancio militare degli Stati Uniti d’America, partendo dalla richiesta del presidente Barack Obama al Congresso di stanziare 534 miliardi di dollari per il Dipartimento della Difesa. Ma l’ammontare reale di ciò che gli USA spendono per la “difesa” è molto maggiore. Per rendere il tutto più facilmente digeribile, ve ne proponiamo una sintesi divisa in quattro parti.
L’Office of Management and Budget ha elaborato un calcolo totale che tiene in considerazione le diverse parti del governo, e comprende i soldi assegnati al Pentagono, le attività relative alle armi nucleari svolte presso il Dipartimento dell’Energia ed alcuni esborsi nel campo della sicurezza effettuati dal Dipartimento di Stato (il ministero degli esteri statunitense) e dall’FBI. Nel bilancio 2010 (che in realtà ha il suo momento iniziale nell’ottobre 2009) la cifra ammonta a 707 miliardi, più della metà della spesa governativa cosiddetta “discrezionale” per l’anno prossimo. La spesa discrezionale è quella per cui gli stanziamenti sono decisi annualmente dal Congresso, a differenza di programmi quali ad esempio quello sanitario denominato Medicare il cui finanziamento è obbligatorio e ricorrente.
Ma la cifra reale è ancora più alta perché, fra le varie cose, l’ufficio governativo del bilancio non tiene conto della spesa aggiuntiva per le guerre in Iraq ed Afghanistan. Riepilogando tutte le diverse fonti di spesa in campo militare per l’anno 2010 che emergono dai documenti contabili, si ha:

  • bilancio del Pentagono: 534 miliardi
  • stanziamenti extra per il personale militare: 4,1 miliardi
  • stanziamenti aggiuntivi Iraq-Afghanistan (anno fiscale 2010): 130 miliardi
  • stanziamenti aggiuntivi Iraq-Afghanistan (anno fiscale 2009, ancora da legiferare): 82,2 miliardi
  • armi nucleari ed altra spesa “atomica” (Dip. dell’Energia): 16,4 miliardi
  • sostegno militare ed economico ad Iraq, Afghanistan e Pakistan (Dip. di Stato): 4,9 miliardi
  • sicurezza, controterrorismo ed aiuto militare a Paesi stranieri, incluso il Medio Oriente ed Israele (Dipartimento di Stato): 8,4 miliardi
  • Guardia costiera (Dipartimento per la Sicurezza Interna): 583 milioni

Spesa totale: 780,4 miliardi di dollari

In questo calcolo sono incluse solo le risorse direttamente collegate ad attività militari, non viene quindi preso in considerazione il Dipartimento dei Veterani la cui spesa di 55,9 miliardi porterebbe il totale a 836,3; e la parte restante del Dipartimento per la Sicurezza Interna (altri 54,5 miliardi), arrivando così alla colossale cifra di 890,8 miliardi di dollari, rispetto ai 534 ufficialmente stanziati.
Si tenga poi presente che i bilanci degli apparati di intelligence (CIA, NSA…) sono segreti e che perciò non possono essere aggiunti a questa contabilità.

,,,

Nel 2008, il Pentagono ha calcolato che gli impegni correnti per i programmi di armamento costeranno al governo, ad ultimazione avvenuta, 1.600 miliardi di dollari. Una parte consistente – 296 miliardi – è rappresentata da costi aggiuntivi. Questi 296 miliardi non sono il risultato di grandi programmi che, in via eccezionale, hanno sfondato il tetto di spesa e sbilanciato i conti, ma rappresentano la norma. Tali incrementi di costo sono spesso significativi: considerando tutti i programmi, la media dell’aumento rispetto alle stime iniziali è pari al 26%. Rappresentano la normalità anche i ritardi nel loro completamento, che riguardano ben il 72% dei programmi.
Incrementi di costo e ritardi hanno subito un peggioramento durante le due amministrazioni Bush terminate nel 2008, ma se si volge lo sguardo ancora più all’indietro si scopre che i costi aggiuntivi sono aumentati ad un ritmo serrato per tutti gli ultimi quindici anni, ad una media del 1,86% annuo per essere precisi. Se la spesa del Pentagono continuerà a crescere al tasso attuale, la media degli incrementi di costo raggiungerà il 46% in dieci anni.
Facendo qualche confronto, lo spreco militare USA è quattro volte tanto l’intera spesa per la difesa della Cina (che oggi rappresenta il secondo bilancio militare nazionale al mondo con 70 miliardi di dollari) ed è anche superiore al bilancio militare di tutti i Paesi dell’Unione Europea messi insieme (pari a 281 miliardi).

,,,

Passiamo ora in rassegna i principali programmi militari statunitensi:

- cacciabombardiere F-22 Raptor: progettato per sfidare i velivoli di concezione sovietica, un F-22 costa 351 milioni di dollari, più del doppio delle stime originali.
Fu messo in produzione ancora prima di essere pienamente testato e – non sorprendentemente – è incorso in ogni genere di intoppi; non ha partecipato a nessuna azione di combattimento in Afghanistan né in Iraq. Il titolare del Pentagono Robert Gates ha deciso di acquistarne altri quattro, per un totale di 187 rispetto ai 243 che inizialmente l’USAF voleva.
Addirittura, all’inizio di quest’anno, 194 deputati e 44 senatori statunitensi hanno scritto ad Obama per sollecitarlo ad acquistare più F-22, ed a metà giugno i parlamentari del comitato militare della Camera hanno previsto uno stanziamento per altri 12 caccia. Sollecitazioni che però non sono servite a rianimare la morente linea di produzione del velivolo, almeno per l’uso domestico. Infatti
è notizia fresca il via libera da parte del comitato finanziario del Senato statunitense allo sviluppo di una versione del F-22 per l’esportazione, privato degli accorgimenti tecnologici “segreti” presenti nella versione originale. Probabilmente la decisione vuole far fronte alla perdita di migliaia di posti di lavoro causata dallo stop della produzione per l’aviazione USA; fra i probabili acquirenti figurano Giappone, Corea del Sud, Australia ed Israele;
- aereo da trasporto C-17 Globemaster III: l’aeronautica USA ne possiede 205 esemplari e non ne chiede di ulteriori,
ma il Senato intende introdurre nel bilancio per la difesa del 2010 l’importo di 2,5 miliardi per comprarne altri 10;
- Future Combat Systems: si tratta di apparati in cui armi, veicoli e robot coesistono, uniti da un comune sistema di comunicazione, ed è un altro caso in cui le intenzioni di spesa sono state messe in pista prima che la tecnologia in questione sia stata effettivamente testata. Dal 2003, il costo totale è aumentato del 73% fino ad arrivare a 159 miliardi, tanto che Gates nei mesi a venire vuole ripensare l’intero programma;
- elicottero presidenziale VH-71: Lockheed Martin ed Agusta Westland (del gruppo Finmeccanica) vinsero nel 2005 la commessa per il sostituto dell’attuale “Marine One”, un Sikorsky VH-60 entrato in servizio nel 1989. La flotta di 28 (!) esemplari doveva costare inizialmente 6 miliardi di dollari, ma poi i correttivi introdotti durante l’amministrazione Bush avevano portato il conto totale quasi a raddoppiare fino ad 11,2 miliardi (400 milioni ad esemplare). Il programma è stato cancellato a maggio, ed una conferma pubblica del suo annullamento è stata data dallo stesso presidente Obama ad agosto in un discorso ai veterani di guerra;
- DDG-1000 Destroyer: navi che dovrebbero costare 4 miliardi di dollari ma fonti alternative stimano un costo reale vicino ai 6 miliardi. Mentre la marina statunitense inizialmente desiderava acquistarne fra un minimo di 16 ed un massimo di 24, Gates tenterà di ridurre il programma a soli 3 Destroyers.

E’ comunque inquietante notare come Gates abbia dato il via libera ad un paio di palesi catorci. Del primo abbiamo già parlato su questo blog, si tratta del Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), un altro progetto Lockheed Martin sviluppato prima di completare i test. Nonostante i suoi costi siano quasi raddoppiati rispetto alle prime stime, Gates si è impegnato ad acquistare 55 di queste unità navali.
Ma
forse l’indizio più evidente della continuità del bilancio militare USA è la decisione di più che raddoppiare l’ordine di cacciabombardieri F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), facendone il più grande programma di acquisizione del Dipartimento della Difesa (quasi a voler placare l’industria produttrice, l’onnipresente Lockheed Martin, per la cancellazione del F-22). Ciò nonostante l’F-35 sia ben lontano dall’essere pronto, visto che a novembre 2008 era stato implementato solo il 2% dei voli di prova previsti.
Secondo l’attuale calendario, gli Stati Uniti spenderebbero 57 miliardi di dollari per acquistarne 360 unità prima che i test siano completati. Per velocizzare i tempi, la Lockheed ha elaborato un piano per svolgere solo il 17% delle prove richieste mediante test di volo, il restante 83% affidandole ai simulatori. Sfortunatamente, secondo un rapporto della Corte dei Conti americana (GAO) “la capacità di sostituire i voli di prova con laboratori di simulazione non è stata ancora dimostrata”.
Ciò non fa che aumentare i dubbi sulla decisione del Dipartimento della Difesa di acquistarne 2.456 (sì, avete letto bene, duemilaquattrocentocinquantasei!).
Fonti ufficiali hanno stimato un costo per l’intero programma superiore al trilione di dollari (più di mille miliardi) – circa la stessa cifra del deficit nazionale -, sommando ai 300 miliardi per l’acquisizione dei velivoli i 760 miliardi per la loro operatività, manutenzione compresa. Ma poiché il Pentagono ha deciso di comprarne così tanti esemplari prima di verificare l’efficienza della tecnologia, ritardi ed incrementi di costo saranno inevitabili.

,,,

Il Dipartimento della Difesa è presente dal 1995 nell’elenco di apparati governativi ad alto rischio stilato dalla Corte dei Conti statunitense. Per gestire gli acquisti, la contabilità e la logistica, le varie agenzie e servizi del Pentagono mantengono 2.480 diversi sistemi informatici, molti dei quali non sono interconnessi. Di conseguenza, nessuno conosce con sicurezza quanto il Pentagono abbia speso in passato, stia spendendo adesso e spenderà in futuro. Al contrario, esso fonda le sue decisioni di bilancio prevalentemente sulle informazioni delle aziende private vincitrici degli appalti.
Un rapporto del Defense Science Board Task Force on Developmental Test and Evaluation rileva che, fra il 1997 ed il 2006, benché il 67% dei sistemi d’arma non abbia superato i parametri di prova, molti di essi sono stati egualmente messi in produzione. Il concetto che il Pentagono dovrebbe “provare prima di comprare” risale almeno agli anni Settanta, ma i funzionari della difesa ed i parlamentari statunitensi non l’hanno mai veramente messo in pratica. Anzi, i funzionari sono fortemente incentivati a sottoscrivere contratti sottostimati perché se rendono noti i veri costi fin da subito, rischiano di non poter avere i loro “giocattoli”. Ogni tanto il Congresso o la Casa Bianca chiedono di insediare un’agenzia indipendente in grado di produrre stime attendibili dei costi, ma ciò è estremamente difficile a causa dello stretto rapporto tra i funzionari del Pentagono e l’industria bellica.
Nel 2006, 2.435 ex funzionari del Pentagono, generali ed ufficiali lavoravano per aziende private operanti nel settore della difesa, ed almeno 400 di questi erano impiegati nell’ambito di appalti direttamente collegati al loro precedente datore di lavoro governativo. Quando i calendari slittano di anni ed i bilanci sforano di miliardi, le aziende sono già state pagate; inoltre, è prassi fra i parlamentari dare il via libera al proseguimento dei programmi nonostante la legge preveda che essi devono essere informati su quei programmi che sforano il bilancio per più del 30% e che quelli con aumenti superiori al 50% devono essere ricertificati o cancellati.
Quest’anno, la Casa Bianca ha promesso di impiegare altri 20.000 funzionari nel prossimi quinquennio per tenere sotto controllo i contratti militari e la relativa spesa, ma bene che vada ci vorranno diversi anni prima che ciò porti frutti. La legge di riforma circa l’acquisto dei sistemi d’arma patrocinata dal candidato repubblicano alle ultime elezioni presidenziali, John McCain, prevede anche l’istituzione di un ufficio per l’accertamento imparziale dei costi che però non dovrebbe occuparsi di tutti i programmi. Ufficio il cui primo direttore, comunque, è William Lynn, lobbysta precedentemente al servizio proprio di un’azienda privata del complesso militare, la Raytheon.

mardi, 02 décembre 2008

USA: R. Gates reste à la tête du Pentagone

Etats-Unis : Robert Gates reste à la tête du Pentagone… Les obamolâtres qui attendaient de l’accession de leur idole à la magistrature suprême une nouvelle donne en matière de politique étrangère américaine pourraient rapidement ressentir comme un diffus sentiment de cocufiage. Le président nouvellement élu a en effet choisi de garder le Républicain Robert Gates à la tête du Pentagone…

Image Hosted by ImageShack.ushttp://fr.novopresse.info/

CHICAGO (NOVOpress) -

Gates, dont le nom a été mêlé au scandale Iran-Contra (ventes secrètes d’armes à l’Iran pour financer la guérilla des Contras au Nicaragua), a été de 1989 à 1991 conseiller du président G.H.W. Bush (« Bush père ») au sein du Conseil national de sécurité. Il est ensuite nommé à la tête de la CIA où il restera jusqu’à la fin du mandat du président Bush, en 1993. Il y travaillera avec Condoleezza Rice. De 1999 à 2001, il est nommé doyen de la George Bush School of Government and Public Service au sein de l’Université du Texas. Bush fils le nommera en décembre 2006 à la tête du Pentagone, en remplacement de Donald Rumsfeld.

Gates a été ou est membre du conseil d’administration d’un certain nombre d’entreprises, dont VoteHere, une société produisant des machines à voter électroniques, de celles qui ont tellement rendu service à son mentor George « W » Bush lors de la présidentielle de 2000…

Depuis 1987, Gates est membre du Council on Foreign Relations, l’un des think tanks où s’élaborent – sans distinction d’appartenance partisane, Républicain et Démocrates s’y côtoyant en toute fraternité… – la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis. Il y co-présidera, avec le très marqué neocon Zbigniew Brzezinski un groupe d’étude sur les relations américano-iraniennes.

Sur le dossier de l’Afghanistan, Gates est en accord total avec le futur patron de la Maison-Blanche : nos deux compères sont partisans d’y renforcer le contingent américain et d’y livrer « une guerre globale au terrorisme ».

Sur l’Irak, Obama est partisan d’un calendrier de retrait des troupes de la coalition en Irak – au plus tard dans 16 mois – Pour Gates au contraire, un retrait total, qui plus est programmé, aurait pour nécessaire conséquence de livrer l’Irak à al-Qaïda et d’anéantir 10 années d’effort de guerre. Gageons que des événements ne manqueront pas de se produire qui sauront convaincre Obama du bien-fondé des vues de son secrétaire d’Etat à la Défense…

Sur l’Iran enfin, il sera difficile au nouveau locataire de la Maison Blanche – outre le dossier du nucléaire militaire toujours pendant – de s’accommoder de la politique expansionniste de Téhéran, qui entend consolider son contrôle sur le « Grand arc chiite », depuis les frontières ouest du Pakistan jusqu’au Liban dominé par le Hezbollah et le Hamas, en passant par l’Irak et la Syrie… Le New York Times s’est récemment fait l’écho des convergences entre Démocrates et Républicains en faveur de l’option militaire. Dès après son investiture, Obama pourrait rapidement décider de frappes majeures contre l’Iran.

« Nous ne pouvons tolérer un monde dans lequel des innocents sont tués par des extrémistes, a vertueusement déclaré Barack Obama lundi, lors d’une conférence de presse à Chicago, saisissant au vol les très opportuns attentats de Bombay. Nous devons recourir à la force totale de notre puissance, pas seulement militaire, mais aussi diplomatique et politique, pour répondre à ces menaces ». Un message qui a le mérite d’être limpide.


[cc] Novopress.info, 2008, Dépêches libres de copie et diffusion sous réserve de mention de la source d’origine
[http://fr.novopress.info]