MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Taliban’

Graveyard of Empires – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2021

America’s war party is trying to find ways to keep the conflict going by raising phony alarms about girl’s schooling, translators and woman’s rights.  But we hear nothing at all from these pro-war hypocrites about the murder, rape and dowry killing of thousands of women in India each year.  How many misinformed Americans know that Taliban was a religious movement formed to stop the rape of Afghan women and brigandage during the bitter 1990’s civil war?  I was there and saw it.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/07/eric-margolis/graveyard-of-empires/

By Eric S. Margolis

The US-led war in Afghanistan looks to be ending, and not a day too soon.  America’s father, Benjamin Franklin, wisely wrote: ‘No good war; no bad peace.’

Yet for 20 years, the United States waged all-out war against this small, remote, impoverished state whose only weapons were old AK47 rifles and the boundless courage of its fierce people. 

In my first book about Afghanistan, ‘War at the Top of the World,’ written after being in the field with the anti-Soviet ‘mujahidin’ warriors, I called them ‘the bravest men on earth.’  Now, some 21 years later, I repeat this title.

For the past two decades, the Afghan nationalist mujahidin have faced the full might of the US empire: waves of B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers; fleets of killer drones, constant air strikes from US airbases in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Gulf; 300,000 US-financed Afghan mercenary troops; up to 120,000 US and NATO troops and other US-paid mercenaries;  the brutal Communist-run Afghan secret police, regular government police, Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek militias, hit squads sent by the US and Britain, plus famine and disease.  Use of torture by western forces was rampant.

All this to defend the US-installed Afghan puppet governments whose main business was protecting the nation’s growing opium trade which made Afghanistan the world’s largest exporter of opium/morphine that was processed into heroin.  Another proud moment for Washington which, in the 1970’s had been up to its ears in Indochina’s opium trade, and later in Central America’s cocaine business. 

Afghanistan was a war of lies, sustained by the powerful US and British media.  President George W. Bush, a man of deep ignorance, launched this war to cover being caught sleeping by the 9/11 attacks.  Bush blamed Osama bin Laden, former US ally, and Afghanistan’s Taliban government for 9/11, though the Afghans were likely not involved with it. 

The only proof of bin Laden’s involvement was a number of fake videos that I believe were made by Afghanistan’s Communist-run intelligence service or its former KGB bosses.  When I pointed out these videos were fakes, CNN blacklisted me from further broadcasting.  So too did Canada’s CBC TV and the Sun chain after I warned Canadian troops were being sent to Afghanistan under false pretenses.

Officially, the US lost 31,376 dead and seriously wounded in Afghanistan; Canada lost 158 dead; Britain 456 dead; the Afghans god knows how many.  Estimates range from, 100,000 to one million.  Two million Afghans reportedly died during the decade-long Soviet occupation.  Almost anything that moved was bombed.

The known cost for this useless war was 2 trillion US dollars, plus hundreds of millions in secret payments to hire ‘volunteers’ from US allies to fight in Afghanistan.  This was almost all borrowed money hidden in the US federal debt.

What next?  The US is trying to find a way to stay engaged in Afghanistan via air attacks from its bases in the Gulf and possibly new ones in Central Asia.  The world’s premier military power simply cannot endure the humiliation of defeat in Afghanistan, particularly so by a bunch of Muslim mountain warriors.  All those US and British ‘experts’ who championed the Afghan war are now hiding their faces, as they did after the Iraq debacle.

America’s war party is trying to find ways to keep the conflict going by raising phony alarms about girl’s schooling, translators and woman’s rights.  But we hear nothing at all from these pro-war hypocrites about the murder, rape and dowry killing of thousands of women in India each year.  How many misinformed Americans know that Taliban was a religious movement formed to stop the rape of Afghan women and brigandage during the bitter 1990’s civil war?  I was there and saw it.

What next? As US power wanes, CIA will try to bolster separatist movements among Afghanistan’s Tajik and Uzbek minorities.  Iran will arm and finance the Shia Hazara minority.  Still Communist dominated Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will support their ethnic brethren in Afghanistan.  Most important, India will intensify intrigues in Afghanistan where its powerful intelligence agency, RAW, is increasingly active.

Meanwhile Pakistan quietly supports Taliban which, like a quarter of Pakistanis, is of Pashtun ethnicity.  China for once does not know what to do in Afghanistan: it wants to block expansion of Indian influence in the subcontinent but deeply fears militant Islam and its rising influence in Chinese-ruled Xinjiang, formerly Turkistan.  

So, Americans may have not seen the last of Afghanistan, one of the greatest follies of US foreign policy.  To paraphrase the great Talleyrand, the US war in Afghanistan ‘was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.’

Eric S. Margolis [send him mail] is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

As Afghanistan Pullout Nears, US Emphasizes Plans to Keep War Going – News From Antiwar.com

Posted by M. C. on July 12, 2021

Instead of defending the peace plan, the Biden Administration is arguing that the war is effectively ongoing, openly talking about heavy airstrike campaigns against the Taliban well beyond the pullout.

Officials are envisioning adding more and more military options to Afghanistan, seeking military base access along the Afghan border in other countries.

The Pentagram wins, again. We lose, again.

https://news.antiwar.com/2021/07/11/as-afghanistan-pullout-nears-us-emphasizes-plans-to-keep-war-going/

by Jason Ditz

The US was supposed to be out of Afghanistan in May, and by the end of August they’ll finally make good on that pledge, more or less. Officials are quick to argue that the US will retain military capabilities in Afghanistan going forward.

This has a political dimension. President Trump made the initial peace deal to withdraw from Afghanistan, but now Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R – IL), an opponent of ending the war, is arguing that the withdrawal is tantamount to a “crushing defeat” in the war.

Instead of defending the peace plan, the Biden Administration is arguing that the war is effectively ongoing, openly talking about heavy airstrike campaigns against the Taliban well beyond the pullout.

Officials are envisioning adding more and more military options to Afghanistan, seeking military base access along the Afghan border in other countries.

While those deals aren’t in place, the Pentagon is still arguing that they will retain military leverage over the Taliban after finishing their withdrawal in late August.

The US has been arguing for weeks now that they will retain military capacity in Afghanistan, and has been assuring the Afghan government that they will be supporting them.

This comes amid Afghan officials insisting they’d be fine without US support, and amid mounting losses the Afghans are facing despite the US troops being present as it is.

After 20 years, the US is so used to being at war in Afghanistan that even when the troops leave they can’t imagine not being able to attack that nation. It’s not clear what that’s going to look like, but they just assume attacks can happen.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Torture Enters the Courtroom – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 10, 2021

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/andrew-p-napolitano/torture-enters-the-courtroom/

By Andrew P. Napolitano

For the first time in American history, a federal judge last week authorized the government to admit as evidence in a criminal case in a public courtroom words uttered by the defendant that were obtained under torture.

The fruits of torture — which is any cruel or degrading or intentionally painful or disorienting behavior visited upon a person in captivity to induce compliance or to gratify the torturer — are not permitted in any court in the United States, and their inducement is criminal.

Here is the backstory.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a low-level former member of the Taliban, is accused with others of plotting the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 that killed 17 American sailors. He has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2004. When he was first captured, he was turned over to the CIA for interrogation, not the Department of Justice for prosecution.

The practice of the federal government immediately following 9/11, when it captured anyone overseas from whom it believed it could extract national security information, was to hand the person over to the CIA for torture — the feds call it “enhanced interrogation” — at a “dark site” in a foreign country with which the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty.

The reason for the location of the torture was the erroneous belief by DOJ and CIA officials that torture conducted or condoned by American personnel is not prosecutable if it occurs outside the U.S.

That has never been the law in the U.S., but it has been the practice of the DOJ and the CIA to shield their personnel with secrecy when they are caught engaging in torture in a foreign country.

However, because either the tortured person or someone connected to whatever the tortured person revealed was to be tried in a federal court, and because no federal court can admit evidence against a defendant that was obtained under torture, the feds devised a scheme around this.

That scheme called for FBI “clean teams” to interrogate the tortured person after the torture was completed, using conventional and lawful interrogation techniques. These techniques often proved more successful than CIA torture. Because these techniques were lawful, and the person being interrogated was advised of his rights and treated humanely by the FBI, the information thus obtained from him was usable in federal court.

At trial, a defendant can always demonstrate that he had been tortured, not to obtain the jury’s sympathy but to enable his lawyers to argue to the jurors that they should disregard as unconstitutional, immoral, unlawful and un-American whatever evidence the torture produced.

Al-Nashiri’s lawyers told the court and the prosecutors at Guantanamo Bay that they intend to argue at trial to the jury that the government has the wrong man and that the true plotters have already been killed by U.S. forces. The feds, in order to counter that argument, told the court that they have statements that al-Nashiri made during his torture that can arguably be used to question his defense.

If the trial judge in the court in Guantanamo Bay had followed the law — the Constitution, the statutes and the rules of procedure, all of which profoundly reject the fruits of cruel and unusual punishment and shocking behavior — as well as American history, he would have excluded from the trial whatever al-Nashiri told his torturers while they had a broomstick well into his rectum.

If the trial judge had followed the law and our values, he would have dismissed the case against al-Nashiri because the government’s behavior shocks the conscience. If the trial judge had followed the law, he would have ordered the torturers into his court room and had them arrested on the spot.

But the trial judge in this case did not follow American law and rejected American values and all sense of human decency when he authorized the government to introduce at trial a partial transcript of the statements al-Nashiri allegedly made under torture. He also broke with 230 years of precedent. He also gave judicial credibility to governmental barbarism and nihilism in the extreme, which holds that individual human beings are subject to the state and, since their rights come from the state, they and their rights exist at the pleasure of the state.

The government lies, cheats, steals and kills; and it has written laws that permit it to do so and make legal recourse against it nearly impossible.

But nothing it does is more damnable than torture.

Torture is the ultimate triumph of the state over a person and the ultimate degradation of personhood. It is a complete rejection of the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And it doesn’t work.

The history of torture is the history of victims divorced from reality by overwhelming fear and unbearable pain and willing to say whatever the torturers demand in return for a cessation of the pain. Stated differently, the fruits of torture are divorced from the truth. As a truth-producing mechanism, torture is a failure.

Many appeals remain for al-Nashiri before his jury trial comes to pass; and torture — with all its sufferings by victim and perpetrators — is part of the history of his case. I trust that saner judicial heads in the appellate process will prevail and this precedent-shattering and monstrous decision will soon be overturned. But its damage is done.

The government of the United States engages in torture and will continue to do so until the torturers are punished. And the prosecutors for whom the torturers work will someday try again to get the fruits of their barbaric behavior legitimized in an American courtroom.

When will the government stop the use of torture? Whom will it torture next? Why does it swear to uphold the Constitution and then trash it?

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tightening of the NATO Noose — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on May 20, 2021

In other words, the purpose of the Bucharest Nine is to help NATO exert even further pressure on Russia’s western border regions, as part of the US-NATO confrontation that is being ramped up while the US and its NATO allies retreat from Afghanistan where they have been defeated in a war that has humiliated the world’s most expensive and sophisticated military machines. They’ve been beaten into the ground by a bunch of raggy-baggy militants who don’t have any strike aircraft or drones or tanks or artillery.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/18/the-tightening-of-the-nato-noose/

Brian Cloughley

NATO’s military noose round Russia’s borders is being tightened in order to force Moscow to react to surging provocation, Brian Cloughley writes.

One of the most recent developments on the NATO front line was a meeting of the so-called ‘Bucharest Nine’ which the analytical agency Stratfor states “is a group of NATO’s easternmost members, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. Most of these countries share strategic interests on issues such as deterring potential Russian aggression, keeping close cooperation with the United States, diversifying their sources of energy, and developing joint infrastructure projects.” The purpose of the video get-together, attended by President Biden and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, was, according to the US-NATO military alliance “to take the agenda forward” in its mission “to consolidate views on issues of interest in the Alliance for the participating nations, and to support joint security projects.”

In other words, the purpose of the Bucharest Nine is to help NATO exert even further pressure on Russia’s western border regions, as part of the US-NATO confrontation that is being ramped up while the US and its NATO allies retreat from Afghanistan where they have been defeated in a war that has humiliated the world’s most expensive and sophisticated military machines. They’ve been beaten into the ground by a bunch of raggy-baggy militants who don’t have any strike aircraft or drones or tanks or artillery. The Taliban have no intention of permitting democracy in Afghanistan, when they eventually take over, after NATO’s retreat, and the country will be plunged into a maelstrom of theocratic bigotry and barbarity.

NATO followed the US into Afghanistan in August 2003 with the mission “to enable the Afghan authorities and build the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to provide effective security, so as to ensure that Afghanistan would never again be a safe haven for terrorists.” It declares that the war and the transition to a training role in 2015, have represented “NATO’s longest and most challenging mission to date: at its height, the force was more than 130,000 strong with troops from 50 NATO and partner nations.” And they still got whipped by a few thousand militants who objected to the presence of foreign forces in their country.

So it’s back to Europe for US-NATO, having had a fun-war on Libya in 2011 when it blasted the country in the name of peace. This fandango of savagery was named “Unified Protector” but all it protected was the profits of Western arms manufacturers. After seven months of bombing and rocketing the country, involving 9,600 airstrikes, the then NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen went to Tripoli and declared he was “proud of the part the Organization and its partners played in helping the country and the region.” But as we know only too well, the country is in chaos.

As I wrote six years ago, two prominent figures involved in the US-NATO war on Libya were Ivo Daalder, the US Representative on the NATO Council from 2009 to 2013, and Admiral James G (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, the US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period. As they ended their war, on October 31, 2011, these two ninnies had a piece published in the New York Times in which they made the absurd claim that “As Operation Unified Protector comes to a close, the alliance and its partners can look back at an extraordinary job, well done. Most of all, they can see in the gratitude of the Libyan people that the use of limited force — precisely applied — can affect real, positive political change.”

See the rest here

© 2010 – 2021 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Liz Cheney Lied About Her Role in Spreading the Discredited CIA “Russian Bounty” Story – Glenn Greenwald

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2021

As part of her ideological war to reclaim the GOP for neocons, the now-deposed House leader falsely denied her role in a tale designed to block withdrawal from Afghanistan.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-role-in?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozMTczNjk0NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MzY0MTE0OTYsIl8iOiJvVC9qbyIsImlhdCI6MTYyMTAxNjA3NCwiZXhwIjoxNjIxMDE5Njc0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.5wsC3guou1Z_R8D5oesQpaTP5pMr_svtosbIdTEoJrA

Glenn Greenwald

In an interview on Tuesday with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) denied that she spread the discredited CIA “Russian bounty” story. That CIA tale, claiming Russia was paying Taliban fighters to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, was cooked up by the CIA and then published by The New York Times on June 27 of last year, right as former President Trump announced his plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. The Times story, citing anonymous intelligence officials, was then continually invoked by pro-war Republicans and Democrats — led by Cheney — to justify their blocking of that troop withdrawal. The story was discredited when the U.S. intelligence community admitted last month that it had only “low to moderate confidence” that any of this even happened.

When Baier asked Cheney about her role in spreading this debunked CIA story, Cheney blatantly lied to him, claiming “if you go back and look at what I said — every single thing I said: I said if those stories are true, we need to know why the President and Vice President were not briefed on them.” After Baier pressed her on the fact that she vested this story with credibility, Cheney insisted a second time that she never endorsed the claim but merely spoke conditionally, always using the “if these reports are true” formulation. Watch Cheney deny her role in spreading that story.https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Fd6u_p0K9aE?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Liz Cheney, as she so often does, blatantly lied. That she merely spoke of the Russian bounty story in the conditional — “every single thing I said: I said if those stories are true” — is completely and demonstrably false. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), there are few if any members of Congress who did more to spread this Russian bounty story as proven truth, all in order to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In so doing, she borrowed from a pro-war playbook pioneered by her dad, to whom she owes her career: the former Vice President would leak CIA claims to The New York Times to justify war, then go on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, as he did on September 8, 2002, and cite those New York Times reports as though they were independent confirmation of his views coming from that paper rather than from him:

MR. RUSSERT: What, specifically, has [Saddam] obtained that you believe would enhance his nuclear development program? …..

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Now, in the case of a nuclear weapon, that means either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. And what we’ve seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs.

MR. RUSSERT: Aluminum tubes.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes. There’s a story in The New York Times this morning this is — I don’t — and I want to attribute The Times. I don’t want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam] has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.

So having CIA stories leak to the press that fuel the pro-war case, then having pro-war politicians cite those to justify their pro-war position, is a Cheney Family speciality.

On July 1, the House Armed Services Committee, of which Rep. Cheney is a member, debated amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that authorized $740.5 billion in military spending. One of Cheney’s top priorities was to align with the Committee’s pro-war Democrats, funded by weapons manufacturers, to block Trump’s plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2020 and to withdraw roughly 1/3 of the 34,000 U.S. troops in Germany.

To justify her opposition, Cheney — contrary to what she repeatedly insisted to Baier — cited the CIA’s Russian bounty story without skepticism. In a joint statement with Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, that Cheney published on her website on June 27 — the same day that The New York Times published its first story about the CIA tale — Cheney pronounced herself “concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces.” There was nothing conditional about the statement: they were preparing to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and cited this story as proof that “Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan.”

After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan. We believe it is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country targeting our forces. Congress has no more important obligation than providing for the security of our nation and ensuring our forces have the resources they need. 

An even more definitive use of this Russia bounty story came when Cheney held a press conference to explain her opposition to Trump’s plans to withdraw troops. In this statement, she proclaimed that she “remains concerned about Russian activities in Afghanistan.” She then explicitly threatened Russia over the CIA’s “bounty” story, warning them that “any targeting of U.S. forces by Russians, by anyone else, will face a very swift and deadly response.” She then gloated about the U.S. bombing of Russia-linked troops in Syria in 2018 using what she called “overwhelming and lethal force,”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Will Biden Have Blood on His Hands in Afghanistan? – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on May 12, 2021

Take a look at this article in USA Today. It’s by a quadruple amputee who lost his arms and legs in Afghanistan. He says it’s time to leave. He says, “I don’t need any soldier to honor me by doing the same thing.”

But that’s exactly what Biden is risking by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately violating an agreement that the U.S. government willingly entered into. 

https://www.fff.org/2021/05/06/will-biden-have-blood-on-his-hands-in-afghanistan/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

President Biden has announced that America’s forever war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end. He says that U.S. forces will exit the country by next September 11. 

That’s a good thing. And it is long overdue. 

But there is one big problem with Biden’s timetable: It violates an agreement that the U.S. government entered into with the Taliban to exit the country by May 1 of this year.

Under that agreement, the Taliban agreed not to attack U.S. troops prior to their scheduled departure on May 1. With Biden’s decision to deliberately  violate the agreement by unilaterally extending the withdrawal to September 11, he is knowingly placing the lives of the 3,500 American servicemen still in Afghanistan at risk.

In fact, the Taliban has implied as much. According to the Washington Post, a Taliban spokesman declared back in April, “If the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit the country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable.”

What’s the point of extending the departure? Is an extension to September so important that it’s worth risking the lives of American servicemen still in Afghanistan? If some soldiers are killed or maimed because Biden cavalierly decided to violate the agreement, will their sacrifice have been worth it? What about the lives of innocent Afghan civilians caught in a crossfire or in a bomb explosion designed to kill U.S. troops? 

Take a look at this article in USA Today. It’s by a quadruple amputee who lost his arms and legs in Afghanistan. He says it’s time to leave. He says, “I don’t need any soldier to honor me by doing the same thing.”

But that’s exactly what Biden is risking by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately violating an agreement that the U.S. government willingly entered into. 

Moreover, as Elliot Ackerman, a former Marine and intelligence officer who served five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, pointed out in an article in the New York Times, 

[R]emoving the 3,500 American troops from Afghanistan is, in military terms, what’s called a “fighting withdrawal,” in which an army leaves the field while still in contact with the enemy. Of all the maneuvers an army can perform (advance, flank, defend, etc.), it is widely accepted that a fighting withdrawal is the most complex and difficult because you are neither attacking nor defending, and so are exceedingly vulnerable.

Unlike the withdrawal from Iraq, in which U.S. troops could drive through the desert into Kuwait as they did in 2011, and unlike the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, in which they could drive across a then-shared border, U.S. troops are currently marooned in Afghanistan, reliant on three principal U.S.-controlled airstrips (Bagram, Jalalabad, Kandahar), making their journey home all the more perilous.

If the Taliban decide to attack U.S. troops from now until September, Biden will have their blood on his hands. He should never have breached the agreement that U.S. officials willingly entered into with their enemy.

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Blinken briefs Afghans on pullout

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2021

” A report on worldwide threats issued by U.S. intelligence agencies forecast Tuesday that the Taliban “is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support.””

Wow! Really? The US invaded the country that never attacked US almost 20 years ago. The almost stone age enemy was operating out of caves with cell phones and VCRs. We are still there.

This war department flip flop is said to be because it is felt the US can’t be tied down trying to defeat a stone age Taliban when they go to war against Russia and China. Of course the Taliban aren’t really stone age. Especially after they received advanced equipment from our ME allies (US aided “moderate” al Qaeda) or just picked it up off the ground after we left an area.

That is our Washington, always one step behind.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=30cad8a90

Nick Wadhams

Bloomberg News TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a visit to Afghanistan on Thursday to brief the country’s leaders on U.S. plans to withdraw its remaining troops by Sept. 11 and to press for a peace agreement with the Taliban.

Blinken made the stop, which wasn’t announced beforehand in keeping with the strict security measures required for such visits, after President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that the U.S. was pulling the more than 2,500 remaining troops from the country by the 20th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks. An additional 7,000 allied forces are also expected to withdraw.

“The reason I’m here, so quickly after the president’s speech last night, is to demonstrate literally, by our presence, that we have an enduring and ongoing commitment to Afghanistan,” Blinken told a crowd at the U.S Embassy in Kabul. He then met with President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, saying the two countries’ “partnership is changing, but the partnership is enduring.” “We respect the decision and are adjusting our priorities,” Ghani told him.

Blinken visited NATO allies in Brussels earlier to coordinate plans for the withdrawal. The decision pushes back a May 1 deadline that the Trump administration agreed to with Taliban leaders.

Military and diplomatic leaders had said a rushed withdrawal could destabilize the country. Officials had also argued that the Pentagon’s previous “con-

See BLINKEN, Page 4A

Continued from Page 1A

ditions-based” approach for withdrawal was a recipe for leaving U.S. forces in the country forever.

Although some members of Congress endorsed Biden’s withdrawal plans, lawmakers from both parties have warned it would set the stage for the Taliban to return to power and for terrorists from al-Qaida and the Islamic State group to reestablish operations in the country.

Blinken told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday that the U.S. will work closely with allies on a “safe, deliberate and coordinated withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan.”

U.S. officials hope the impending troop withdrawal will create a new sense of urgency for Ghani’s government to agree to a peace deal with the Taliban. At the same time, it has complicated a U.S.-backed peace conference in Istanbul that representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban had been set to attend beginning April 24. The Taliban said in a tweet late Tuesday that it wouldn’t participate.

A report on worldwide threats issued by U.S. intelligence agencies forecast Tuesday that the Taliban “is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support.”

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, right, meets with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Kabul on Thursday. AFGHAN PRESIDENTIAL PALACE VIA AP

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Biden Begs Taliban: Let Us Stay Six More Months

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2021

The Biden Administration seems intent on breaking the agreement signed under the Trump Administration for US troops to finally leave Afghanistan, the longest and perhaps most pointless war in US history. Rather than follow through with the withdrawal, the White House is attempting to negotiate with the Taliban for six more months. How many more Americans (and Afghanis) will have to die for this failed policy? Also today, Biden ratchets up war tensions in Ukraine, shipping more than 300 tons of new weapons. War drums getting louder.

More Americans will die if Biden cheats on the deal.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Biden Begs Taliban: Let Us Stay Six More Months” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2021

The Biden Administration seems intent on breaking the agreement signed under the Trump Administration for US troops to finally leave Afghanistan, the longest and perhaps most pointless war in US history. Rather than follow through with the withdrawal, the White House is attempting to negotiate with the Taliban for six more months. How many more Americans (and Afghanis) will have to die for this failed policy? Also today, Biden ratchets up war tensions in Ukraine, shipping more than 300 tons of new weapons. War drums getting louder.

https://youtu.be/28ZBOXIvHjA

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

How generals profit from war

Posted by M. C. on November 17, 2020

The Rich Man’s War and Poor Man’s Fight, with Major Danny Sjursen (retired)

https://mailchi.mp/59f03d428e28/how-generals-profit-from-war-4127585?e=de2d0eded6

Why would the U.S. Army pay the Taliban during the daytime, and then fight and kill them at night?

Major Danny Sjursen details from his own experience how his former commanders would send their men to die in pointless missions in order to further their own careers in the military, and to secure a job with an arms corporation after retirement. 
`”These are what Obi-Wan Kenobi called ‘the economics of politics.’ Right here, bare-ass naked for everyone to see exactly what’s going on here.”— Scott Horton
Sjursen names former commanders and colleagues who profited off of this corrupt system.

Using war for private profit goes all the way to the top of the political hierarchy, as Horton reminds us by referring to the case of senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, who tried to sell armored personnel carriers to Qaddafi mere months before they pushed for his death.

President Trump has recognized the two castes in the military, the top brass who “want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy” and the enlisted men who “love” him because “we’re getting out of the endless wars”
Yet for all his rhetoric, Trump has failed to end any wars. And it looks like a Biden presidency will continue endless wars along the neoconservative status quo.

For more examples of high-ranking officers directing foreign policy to their personal gain, including the profitable application of counterinsurgency tactics on United States citizens, click the link below.
Listen to Interview
Innoculate others against war propaganda. Share this email.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »