Part of a Lannon Foundation lecture series. Topics include Pakistan, Egypt, Mubarak, People Power in general, Tunisia, Yemen, the Tucson shootings, UAVs, non-drone air warfare in the FATA, Petraeus, McChrystal, active and retired military sources critical of U.S. mission, strategy and tactics and the status of the United States as a force (for anything) in the world in the near future and potential for utter decline. Enjoy!
Showing posts with label Jeremy Scahill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremy Scahill. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
It's not news; it's just astounding: How U.S. Funds Taliban
"US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents."
—Aram Roston, The Nation magazine
This information is from November 9, 2009. I just don't understand why it's outside public consciousness that the United States has been paying its enemy to fight our own people in uniform for years while the popular support of the U.S. war in Afghanistan hangs by a tiny thread of the last half-successful hunt for a terrorist or "high-value target." If citizens of the U.S. were told by CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the rest that the Taliban in Afghanistan was being paid by the U.S. to not attack supply convoys, how would there be support for the war? It's like betting against the champ in a boxing match when you've already heard the champ is going to throw the fight. Which, when all of your social programs have been shut down, unemployment is in double-digits, consumer lending has stalled and twenty percent of homes are worth less than the amount owed to the bank, Afghanistan (not even getting into Iraq and saber-rattling plans to invade Iran) seems like a summer vacation that should have been canceled because this year, kids, we just can't afford it.
If you follow the link, you'll see the entire (old) story at thenation.com
—Aram Roston, The Nation magazine
This information is from November 9, 2009. I just don't understand why it's outside public consciousness that the United States has been paying its enemy to fight our own people in uniform for years while the popular support of the U.S. war in Afghanistan hangs by a tiny thread of the last half-successful hunt for a terrorist or "high-value target." If citizens of the U.S. were told by CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the rest that the Taliban in Afghanistan was being paid by the U.S. to not attack supply convoys, how would there be support for the war? It's like betting against the champ in a boxing match when you've already heard the champ is going to throw the fight. Which, when all of your social programs have been shut down, unemployment is in double-digits, consumer lending has stalled and twenty percent of homes are worth less than the amount owed to the bank, Afghanistan (not even getting into Iraq and saber-rattling plans to invade Iran) seems like a summer vacation that should have been canceled because this year, kids, we just can't afford it.
If you follow the link, you'll see the entire (old) story at thenation.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Pentagon Seeks Private Contractor to Move Weapons Through Pakistan/Afghanistan
From Jeremy Scahill May 25 Rebel Reports & The Nation magazine online
It is not, of course, a secret supplies must be delivered to forward operating bases in Afghanistan. What's interesting here is areas where the provisions of the contract being offered--work that apparently can't effectively be done by the U.S. military itself--differs from verbiage in the White House strategy for Afghanistan which contains a draw-down and eventual withdrawal in 2011. The notion that Pakistan and Afghanistan are too dangerous for the U.S. military to negotiate supplies into in coming months is a grim outlook. It's just a proposal of a contract for services, but plans indicate intent to some degree, do they not?
Excerpt taken from Scahill's Rebel Reports appears below ...
"[The United States military is in the process of taking bids from private war contractors to secure and ship massive amounts of US military equipment through sensitive areas of Pakistan into Afghanistan where it will then be distributed to various US Forward Operating Bases and other facilities. According to the contract solicitation, “There will be an average of 5000” import shipments “transiting the Afghanistan and Pakistan ground lines of communication (GLOC) per month,” along with 500 export shipments.” The solicitation states that, “This number may increase or decrease due to US military transportation requirements,” adding, “The contractor must maintain a constant capability to surge to any location within Afghanistan or Pakistan” within a 30-day period. Among the duties the contractor will perform is “intelligence, to include threat assessments throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
And while it seems the US is trying to put a Pakistani or Afghan face on the work, the terms of the contract mandate that US personnel will be involved with inherently risky and potentially lethal operations. Among the firms listed by the Department of Defense as “interested vendors” are an Afghan firm tied to a veteran CIA officer and run by the son of Afghan defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, and a Pakistani firm with links to Blackwater.]"
It is not, of course, a secret supplies must be delivered to forward operating bases in Afghanistan. What's interesting here is areas where the provisions of the contract being offered--work that apparently can't effectively be done by the U.S. military itself--differs from verbiage in the White House strategy for Afghanistan which contains a draw-down and eventual withdrawal in 2011. The notion that Pakistan and Afghanistan are too dangerous for the U.S. military to negotiate supplies into in coming months is a grim outlook. It's just a proposal of a contract for services, but plans indicate intent to some degree, do they not?
Excerpt taken from Scahill's Rebel Reports appears below ...
"[The United States military is in the process of taking bids from private war contractors to secure and ship massive amounts of US military equipment through sensitive areas of Pakistan into Afghanistan where it will then be distributed to various US Forward Operating Bases and other facilities. According to the contract solicitation, “There will be an average of 5000” import shipments “transiting the Afghanistan and Pakistan ground lines of communication (GLOC) per month,” along with 500 export shipments.” The solicitation states that, “This number may increase or decrease due to US military transportation requirements,” adding, “The contractor must maintain a constant capability to surge to any location within Afghanistan or Pakistan” within a 30-day period. Among the duties the contractor will perform is “intelligence, to include threat assessments throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
And while it seems the US is trying to put a Pakistani or Afghan face on the work, the terms of the contract mandate that US personnel will be involved with inherently risky and potentially lethal operations. Among the firms listed by the Department of Defense as “interested vendors” are an Afghan firm tied to a veteran CIA officer and run by the son of Afghan defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, and a Pakistani firm with links to Blackwater.]"
Thursday, May 6, 2010
A brief history of the unmanned aerial vehicle
An illuminating article appears on the Nebraskans for Peace web site about drone warfare and the history of UAV's.
StratCom: The Fulcrum for Drone Warfare by Loring Wirbel, Citizens for Peace in Space Colorado Springs, Colorado
Excerpt— "In the early years of the ‘War on Terror,’ missions involving Unpiloted Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) could be divided into those sponsored directly by regional combat commands in the Pentagon, and the more covert missions planned and executed by the CIA—both of which were supported by space and intelligence assets. The Pentagon-conducted missions tended to adhere to stricter rules of military engagement, which meant that if a drone directly targeted an individual al-Qaida suspect, chances were good that the mission was clandestine and run by the CIA.
In recent months, however, a third level of management has emerged, raising even greater questions of responsibility and accountability. According to journalist Jeremy Scahill and several other sources, the Pentagon’s secretive 'Joint Special Operations Command' (JSOC) manages unacknowledged armed UAV missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. These missions are run directly by Blackwater/Xe and several of its subsidiaries. Yet, because the ultimate authority for the missions goes back to JSOC, Strategic Command in Omaha (particularly its ‘Global Strike’ component) plays a more direct role in these even more deeply covert UAV strikes, than it does in CIA missions.
Demonstrators who went to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia January 16 to protest the Agency’s drone attacks provided a rare and needed public face to these UAV missions which have become so commonplace in the past several years. Yet the protests only scratch the surface. The passing of armed-UAV authority among official combat commands, quasi-official CIA bases, and deniable JSOC/Blackwater missions allows the Pentagon to play a shell game that keeps activists from understanding who does what. And the central player shuffling the shells is Strategic Command."
StratCom: The Fulcrum for Drone Warfare by Loring Wirbel, Citizens for Peace in Space Colorado Springs, Colorado
Excerpt— "In the early years of the ‘War on Terror,’ missions involving Unpiloted Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) could be divided into those sponsored directly by regional combat commands in the Pentagon, and the more covert missions planned and executed by the CIA—both of which were supported by space and intelligence assets. The Pentagon-conducted missions tended to adhere to stricter rules of military engagement, which meant that if a drone directly targeted an individual al-Qaida suspect, chances were good that the mission was clandestine and run by the CIA.
In recent months, however, a third level of management has emerged, raising even greater questions of responsibility and accountability. According to journalist Jeremy Scahill and several other sources, the Pentagon’s secretive 'Joint Special Operations Command' (JSOC) manages unacknowledged armed UAV missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. These missions are run directly by Blackwater/Xe and several of its subsidiaries. Yet, because the ultimate authority for the missions goes back to JSOC, Strategic Command in Omaha (particularly its ‘Global Strike’ component) plays a more direct role in these even more deeply covert UAV strikes, than it does in CIA missions.
Demonstrators who went to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia January 16 to protest the Agency’s drone attacks provided a rare and needed public face to these UAV missions which have become so commonplace in the past several years. Yet the protests only scratch the surface. The passing of armed-UAV authority among official combat commands, quasi-official CIA bases, and deniable JSOC/Blackwater missions allows the Pentagon to play a shell game that keeps activists from understanding who does what. And the central player shuffling the shells is Strategic Command."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)