"Afghan officials are keen that any (US) foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops' use and deployment."...(US personnel and taxpayer dollars would be subservient to Islamic Sharia law). John McCain says Obama should be able to send Americans to die and divert trillions of tax dollars without congressional approval.
6/13/11, "Secret US and Afghanistan talks could see troops stay for decades," UK Guardian, J. Burke
"American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades.
Though not publicised, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 – the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave — despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal.
American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any "permanent" bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements.
"There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently," a US official told the Guardian.
British troops, Nato officials say, will also remain in Afghanistan long past the end of 2014, largely in training or mentoring roles.
Although they will not be "combat troops" that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example.
Senior Nato officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014.
There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets.
News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US.
American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans' first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was "vaguely formulated", one Afghan official told the Guardian.
Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands....
Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden.
"We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party," said Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser.
A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops' use and deployment.
"There should be no parallel decision-making structures ... All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution," Spanta said.
Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama's expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is "simply not possible," the Afghan official said.
There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A "series of conversations" with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian....
Senior Nato officials argue that a permanent international military presence will demonstrate to insurgents that the west is not going to abandon Afghanistan and encourage them to talk rather than fight....
Mark Sedwill, the Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a "Great Game 3.0" in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilising conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century."...
---------------------------------------
6/13/11, "Panetta: Obama Can Unilaterally Use Military to Protect ‘National Interests’," CNS News, Matt Cover
"“Does it worry you if the Congress begins to tell the commander in chief as to exactly … what the president can or cannot do in any conflict?” asked McCain."...
----------------------------------------------------------
Young Afghan girls brutally flogged for running away from forced marriages (as happens across the broad range of Islamic countries). The US is supporting this culture and plans to continue to waste American lives and steal money from Americans already ravaged by depression with no end in sight. Unless the US states Shariah law is the enemy and fights against it, it is criminal for us to be there. Video posted June 1, 2010 with caption, "two Afghan girls who were flogged for running away underscores the fact that forced marriage is a cultural norm with America's "Allies" in Central Asia."
You Tube is not anxious for Americans to know what they are dying for in this hell hole of a country. When I tried to look at this video, You Tube withheld it, demanded I formally sign in and state I was over 18. When I got through that, the video had multiple disclaimers to further discourage viewing, warning that images were very 'disturbing.' EXACTLY, which is why they should be playing 24/7 in every home in America.
--------------------------------------------
Karzai says Islamic stoning should go through 'proper judicial systems.'
- 8/16/10, BBC: "Taliban 'kill adulterous Afghan couple',"
- "Even in Islam this [stoning] has to be done
- through proper judicial systems," he said....
- Stoning is part of sharia law in many places:
- ...Ayatollah Shahroudi, the head of Iran’s judiciary, ...in 2002 said stoning should no longer exist in Iranian law.
Despite Shahroudi’s stance, stoning continues to remain on the law books in Iran and
- lower judges are free to sentence adulterers to that method of punishment."
----------------------------------------------
2/11/11, "Pew Global Attitudes Project" conducted 4/12/10-5/7/10, released 12/2/10
==========================
The US political class is easily completing bin Laden's and Islam's stated goals:
12/28/01, "Osama: Hit U.s. Economy," NY Daily News, H. Kennedy
"In his latest video message after three months on the lam, a gaunt Osama Bin Laden urged Muslims to wage economic holy war against a "fragile" America. "It is important to concentrate on the destruction of the American economy," Bin Laden says on the 33-minute tape, broadcast in full yesterday by Al Jazeera TV in Qatar. "If their economy ends, they will become too busy to enslave oppressed people." Bin Laden bragged that the attacks caused losses of "more than a trillion dollars on the New York market and elsewhere." "This economic hemorrhaging continues until today but requires more blows. And the youth should try to find the joints of the American economy and hit the enemy in these joints.""
via Lucianne.com
No comments:
Post a Comment