The link
It appears the current material conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan are very unpopular, as even with the recession and horrible job market, “not enough” people want to join the military to fight a strategically flawed war in Afghanistan and an ideologically flawed war in Iraq. So the army is now hiring “for profit” contractors to “fill the void,” thus validating claims of a military industrial complex. We continue to be weary of veterans who brag about their service while simultaneously pretending they are political dissidents.

WASHINGTON — The Army’s ability to train its forces is “increasingly at risk” because of the nation’s protracted commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the general in charge of training has told the Army’s chief of staff.

In a Feb. 16 memo to Gen. George W. Casey, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, says that the Army has lost thousands of uniformed trainers because of troop demands in Iraq and Afghanistan, has had to put junior officers in charge of some key training functions and has delayed initial instruction for nearly 500 pilots because it doesn’t have enough trainers.

Only 30 percent of the instructors at Army training schools are in the military, Dempsey says, with the Army increasingly dependent on outside contractors.

“We are behind in integrating lessons learned, developing training and updating doctrine,” Dempsey wrote in the memo, a copy of which McClatchy obtained. “We are undermanned in our efforts to design the future Army.”

Dempsey’s warning occurs as the Obama administration presses ahead with plans to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by 30,000 and has committed a growing number of military trainers to doubling the size of the Afghan security forces. Since Dempsey took command of TRADOC in December 2008, the command has sent 889 troops, contractors and civilians to Iraq and 675 to Afghanistan.

Casey, who’s frequently warned that the long-term commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the Army, said in an interview this week that Dempsey’s memo didn’t surprise him.

He said, however, that the military didn’t have enough soldiers to commit more troops to training, and that relief would come from two developments: the continued withdrawal from Iraq and the planned expansion of the Army by 65,000 soldiers by the end of 2011.

Dempsey’s memo “is his way of getting it on my radar,” Casey said.

Titled “Erosion of TRADOC’s Core Competencies and Functions,” the memo contains a litany of how keeping a large troop presence in two war zones while committing to train foreign troops has hurt the military’s training efforts.

There are 96,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 78,000 in Afghanistan.

Dempsey wrote that since September 2001, the number of soldiers assigned to training and other planning responsibilities has declined by 7,300, while the number of civilian employees has declined by 4,500. To fill the gap, Dempsey says, his command has hired 9,000 outside contractors.

He complains that the result is a “de-greening” of training, meaning less reliance on Army personnel. For example, he wrote, outside contractors are teaching 68 percent of the courses at the Army’s Intelligence School.

Dempsey says the manpower shortage has affected ROTC training programs, particularly at universities that provide large numbers of junior officers to the Army. He says that the officer-to-student ratios at five of the nation’s six largest ROTC programs, including The Citadel in South Carolina and Texas A&M University, now exceed 1 to 45 and that in some cases the ratio is 1 to 76.

A shortage of captains and majors with combat experience is particularly troubling, he says.

“Their experience level is of extreme importance to our command because it gives them the field-tested knowledge and credibility to teach, coach and mentor the officers following behind them,” Dempsey wrote.

He wrote that 18 first lieutenants were filling company command positions in basic combat training units — positions usually reserved for higher-ranking officers — and that the command has had to turn to noncommissioned officers in some of those units to fill operations positions usually reserved for commissioned officers.

The Translated Link from Arabic

Agencies – Media sources said that former Prime Minister Tony Blair lied to the investigation committee on the Iraq war when he claimed that attention to topple former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began after the attacks atheist ten of September. And removed the newspaper “The Independent” British unveiling of the document did not receive the Commission of Inquiry into the Iraq war, confirms that the government of Tony Blair made secret plans to drum up support for the establishment of an internal coup against Saddam Hussein two years before the invasion of Iraq. The newspaper “The Independent” The British Foreign Office officials drafted a plan called “contract with the people,” suggested to the dissidents in Iraq that toppling Saddam would receive support from Britain, also pledged to provide aid and debt cancellation of oil contracts and the provision of commercial transactions as soon as the ouster The newspaper “has been the completion of the plan, titled” Confidential – for the eyes of the British and U.S. “in the June 11, 2001, and approved by the cabinet of ministers.” The document said Britain would “want to deal with Iraq that respects the rights of its people and live in peace with its neighbors and abide by international law and the right of the Iraqi people to live in a society based on rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest, and that respects human rights, freedom and prosperity the economy. The document said “those who wish to be published a call for change in Iraq deserve our support. We look forward to the day when Iraq who is due to join the international community, will receive a new system to reschedule debt and aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund aid package and trade of the European Union.” Mr Blair said during his testimony before the commission last week that serious attention to the overthrow of Saddam breed only after ten atheist attacks of September, which changed from “a risk”. For his part, “said Ed Duffy, spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in foreign affairs, said the document questioned the validity of the certificate made by Blair should have been published before hearing his testimony on Friday. “The plan to support the Iraqis who seek to topple Saddam may be less harmful, and that was without a doubt the most legitimate what happened. However, it appears that Blair had always intended to change the system since the early and before the atheist of September.” “It seems, however, that veil of secrecy was lifted from the documents is crucial, which stop an obstacle to question Blair and other people.” In addition, newspaper “The Guardian” The Commission of Inquiry Celkot Blair will call again to make further submissions before it. She said Blair would be questioned in public and in secret after the committee expressed concern that his testimony on the legality of the invasion are contrary to those made by the former British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

This article focuses on Blair, but it is clear that Bush was trying to downplay the Afghanistan war, and switch to Iraq, even though a stronger case can be made against Afghanistan than against Iraq. Iraq is secular and never attacked USA. It was back stabbed. Afghanistan is theocratic and could be accused of Al-Qaeda collaboration. Yet Bush wanted to get the focus off of Afghanistan and onto Iraq.

The motives are ulterior! Profit and gain!

Hamas rallies in Gaza marking 22 years since its foundation.

The war in Iraq is a war for oil. The nature of the conflict is indeed that of a profit motive.

The war in Afghanistan is completely different. Bush didn’t plan on invading. 9/11 happened and put him on the spot. I don’t take people seriously who argue that 9/11 was an inside job and will just laugh at them if they comment.

The war in Afghanistan is a war against Islam, but it is corrupted by the profit motive. But the war does not have an original class nature. Bush didn’t plan on invading Afghanistan before 9/11. The original nature of the war was to destroy Sharia law and destroy Al-Qaeda

It is the profit motive that corrupts the American military into democratization, but the original motive was indeed an anti-Jihad motive.

Without apology, I support the war in Afghanistan, but think it needs to be a bit more aggressive. Democracy must be crushed and replaced with authority. I oppose and have always opposed the war in Iraq.

Source: The Red Phoenix, Official organ of the American Party of Labor

War President Obama: 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

Obama: “We Did Not Ask for This Fight”
Bush: “We Did Not Seek This Conflict”
Obama: “New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak”
Bush: “At This Moment … Terrorists are Planning New Attacks”
Obama: “Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering”
Bush: “Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined”
Obama: “This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat”
Bush: “The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle”
Obama: “We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country”
Bush: “I Wouldn’t Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either”

The war in Afghanistan turned 8 years old on October 7^th, 2009. The War in Afghanistan has carried on longer than the Second World War…
Longer than the First World War…
Longer than the American Civil War …

When you talk to a person in the United States or Canada about the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, many are unaware that the conflict persists to this day (in fact, it is escalating). Despite the recent escalations in Afghanistan, most pay the conflict absolutely no mind in their day-to-day affairs. Why would they? But the Afghan resistance continues, in the face of a foe that is better armed, funded and supplied than the insurgency. In the face of this resistance, successive administrations of NATO commanders continue to give the same message on Afghanistan: “We cannot win”.

So, how is it that the some of the poorest people on the planet earth are holding their own, and continuing to give NATO forces in Afghanistan an ongoing fight and mounting casualties? More importantly why do the people of Afghanistan continue to resist?

Afghanistan: A Brief History
Afghanistan is, if nothing else, a historical example of iron resistance to invasion.
Alexander the Great, the Mongol Khans, the Persians, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics…no great power has been able to conclusively conquer Afghanistan or hold it indefinitely, no matter what the brutality towards the Afghan peoples inhabiting the region or the cost in human life. Every empire that has ever invaded Afghanistan has subsequently collapsed.

The following account could have just as easily been written after the American conquest of Afghanistan in 2001, but it is an analysis of the British conquest of Afghanistan in 1839 (my emphasis added):
“The conquest of Afghanistan seemed accomplished, and a considerable portion of the troops was sent back. But the Afghans were noways content to be ruled by the Feringhee Kaffirs (European infidels), and during the whole of 1840 and ’41, insurrection followed on insurrection in every part of the country. The Anglo-Indian troops had to be constantly on the move. Yet, McNaghten declared this to be the normal state of Afghan society, and wrote home that every thing went on well, and Shah Soojah’s power was taking root. In vain were the warnings of the military officers and the other political agents….every insurrection during the summer of ’41 was successfully repressed, and toward October, McNaghten, nominated governor of Bombay, intended leaving with another body of troops for India. But then the storm broke out. The occupation of Afghanistan cost the Indian treasury £1,250,000 per annum: 16,000 troops, Anglo-Indian, and Shah Soojah’s, had to be paid in Afghanistan; 3,000 more lay in Sinde, and the Bolan Pass; Shah Soojah’s regal splendours, the salaries of his functionaries, and all expenses of his court and government, were paid by the Indian treasury, and finally, the Afghan chiefs were subsidized, or rather bribed, from the same source, in order to keep them out of mischief. McNaghten was informed of the impossibility of going on at this rate of spending money. He attempted retrenchment, but the only possible way to enforce it was to cut down the allowances of the chiefs. The very day he attempted this, the chiefs formed a conspiracy for the extermination of the British, and thus McNaghten himself was the means of bringing about the concentration of those insurrectionary forces, which hitherto had struggled against the invaders singly, and without unity or concert; though it is certain, too, that by this time the hatred of British dominion among the Afghans had reached the highest point.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

While the British occupiers grew complacent in their conquest of Afghanistan, resistance erupted. Engels continues:

“ Nov. 2, 1841, the insurrection broke out. The house of Alexander Burnes, in the city, was attacked and he himself murdered. The British general did nothing, and the insurrection grew strong by impunity…. A few companies were sent against the thousands of insurgents, and of course were beaten. This still more emboldened the Afghans. Nov. 3, the forts close to the camp were occupied. On the 9th, the commissariat fort (garrisoned by only 80 men) was taken by the Afghans, and the British were thus reduced to starvation…In fact, by the middle of November, his irresolution and incapacity had so demoralised the troops that neither Europeans nor Sepoys were any longer fit to meet the Afghans in the open field. Then the negotiations began. During these, McNaghten was murdered in a conference with Afghan chiefs. Snow began to cover the ground, provisions were scarce. At last, Jan. 1, a capitulation was concluded. All the money, £190,000, was to be handed over to the Afghans, and bills signed for £140,000 more. All the artillery and ammunition, except 6 six-pounders and 3 mountain guns, were to remain. All Afghanistan was to be evacuated. The chiefs, on the other hand, promised a safe conduct, provisions, and baggage cattle.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

The British adventure in Afghanistan ended with the withdrawal of British troops and thousands of British soldiers dead with a disproportionately larger amount of the people of Afghanistan killed in the process. The later Soviet adventure in Afghanistan ended under similar terms. The mass resistance to occupation was enough to drive out even the most technologically superior foe. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the period of Taliban rule began, which leads us to the current occupation which began in 2001.

“Cartoon” Muslims and Chauvinistic Orientalism

“These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”
- Canadian Chief of Defense staff, General Rick Hillier.

The ongoing resistance in Afghanistan is written off by Western audiences as savage and the ongoing resistance to occupation is seen as a malevolent force that would just as surely wage a military strike on the United States itself, as well as allied countries, if ever given the chance.
The fighters in Afghanistan are seen literally by many Western observers as being in league with the infamous 9/11 hijackers. Of course, none of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Afghanistan (15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab emirates, 1 from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon), but nonetheless the parallel is drawn.
For this reason, as with resistance/national liberation fighters all over the Middle East, the Afghan resistance fighters are portrayed as two-dimensional cartoon villains, motivated purely by irrational religious fundamentalism. Of course, it is true to an extent that all political movements in contemporary Afghanistan (including the Karzai puppet regime) claim allegiance to Islam, as the majority of the population does.

The dehumanizing portrayal of all Afghan resistance fighters as bloodthirsty religious zealots—note that in most narratives, it is the occupied people of Afghanistan who are portrayed as the aggressors—coupled with “War on Terror” pop-Islamic theology, where the smug premise is given that the unwashed Muslim peoples of the world want nothing more than to end their own life and others in order to receive a celestial gift of paradise and virgins in the afterlife, has given rise to massive national-chauvinism and racism.

While Islam does perhaps have cases of condoning martyrdom, one must also remember that so do Christianity and Judaism, the other major Abrahamic faiths. The allegations of Islamic scriptural basis for the war in Afghanistan are flimsy, as it contrasts sharply with not only the long history of coexistence (including intermarriage) among Muslims and non-Muslim neighboring peoples around the world, but also contrasts with some of the teachings of Islam itself.
From the Quran:
“Be good to . . . the neighbor belonging to your people and the alien neighbor.” (4:36)
“Allah does not forbid you concerning those people who do not fight you because of your religion, nor expel you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly.. . . Allah forbids you only concerning those people who fight you for your religion, and drive you from your homes and help others to expel you, that you make friends of them.” (60: 8,9)
“And you will always find treachery in them, except a few of them. So pardon them and forgive. Surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (5:13)

These are words of peace and coexistence, taken from the same scriptures as those alleged to incite suicide bombings. It becomes clear at this war being waged in Afghanistan, and other wars waged in other parts of the Middle East against occupation, while they may assume Islam as their vehicle just as most Western conflicts acquired a basis in Christianity, it is not the Islamic faith that is the driving force behind their armed defiance. The actual reasons for their armed resistance are very worldly, very material and tangible—the continuation of capitalism and imperialism.

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE

What has he changed, nothing?

The economy still sucks for anyone who does not have special connections.
The war for liberal Democracy still goes on.
Americans remain ignorant.

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE

‘Emergency Protest: No Escalation! U.S./NATO Out Now!—San Francicso

Wednesday, December 2, 5 p.m.
Powell and Market Streets

On Tuesday, December 1, President Obama is expected to announce that tens of thousands additional U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan in the coming months.

A call for protest actions across the country against the war and escalation following the announcement has been issued by several national organizations including A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition, World Can’t Wait, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans For Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, National Assembly, and others.

Join us to demand: No Escalation—Bring ALL the Troops Home Now! No to War and Occupation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Everywhere! Money for People’s Needs, Not War!

Call 415-821-6545 for more info or to volunteer.