I just watched Gas prices go from $3 to $4 a gallon this last week.
The OIL companys are repricing their current stock to the market.
So OIL they bought eailer at a lower price which is in the pipe line now, just got repriced to the current markets higher price.
Let me explain. Wheat was around $3 a bushel, and my box of Wheaties was about $3 a box.
Now when the price of Wheat peaked at $12 a bushel recently, The grocery stores did NOT go back and re-price every box on the shelves ,of Wheaties at $12. Did they.
This Method of pricing all oil in the pipe line to the market creating win fall profits might not be illegal, but but it seems unpatriotic. And should be taxed heavily.
The oil companies are raking unheard of oil profits unprecedented ever in any industry, and taking advantage of US citizens and the Government. We have a WAR that runs on OIL.
We will have poor freezing to death this winter, because of this.
This recession is going to hit VERY HARD. Oil production has peaked, and world is converting food stock to fuel. WE will never see $3 a gallon gas again. $4 a gallon is just the start. Oil and food tripling in px in the past year.
Globalization and labor arbitrage will continue to push USA wages towards world averages. An incremental decrease in American standards of living, adjustments must be made. While rising food and fuel prices will have a negative impact on the US economy it will devastate American poor and 3rd world economies and spur insurgent activities.
USA needs to set bench marks for these Governments to reach to continue to receive aid and Military support.
The people in these states have a responsibility to the rest of the world to bring the terrorist in their countrys under control, by negotiation or death. Taliban suckers Paki Gov.
Let the Taliban take over these governments, it is much eaiser to take out a state Government vs a war with insurgents, let them suffer the pains of failure to handle the GWOT problem.
USA has demonstrated its ability to strike inside a country and take out select leadership.
USA has a responsibility to protect its citizens from terrorists, and that may be easier to do if the terrorist are running the government of a state rather than dealing with a terrorist insurgency.
Pakistan has demonstrated again and again its lack of ability to come to grips with the Taliban problem. Pakistan believe they can negotiate with the Taliban and will fail like the earlier deals struck between the Pakistani government and the militants in 2004, 2005 and 2006. The Taliban have demonstrated they have no honor, they have even sold out their own.
At what point does the USA quit supporting stupidity? This amounts to duplicity, secret agreements with the Taliban about keeping al Qaeda as pets.
Refusing direct USA military aid and troops to close with their taliban enemy of which they are seem incapable of defeating.
If the Afghans and Pakis can't meet certain bench marks, then let them suffer the Taliban. Impose economic sanctions, they have the responsibility to bear the burden in this struggle not America. Currently Pakistan is in the middle of an economic boom.
Pulling aid and Military support from Paki would kill the economic BOOM! during the ensuing Taliban take over.
Pakistan has admitted they are not pursuing Bin Laden, Paki Not looking for Biny. Comparatively, the area occupied by Pakistan is slightly less than twice the size of the state of California. Give them 6 months to get him, if they don't' then cut aid $ by 50%. Only $5 billion a year. put the other $5 billion into USA's Social Security System. They have had 6 years, and Billion$ and billion$ of UDS and 100,000 troops and can't find Biny? BS.
Establish corruption police in Afghan, with targeted bench marks on transparency and arrests. Cut Afghan aid if the marks are not met.
Currently "they" are playing both ends against each other and pocketing the money.
Bring in the FBI and start investigations , make arrests and send the crooks to prison. The current paradigm is NOT working.
They profit from the GWOT by corruption and keeping the bad guys free to keep the funds flowing for fighting the bad guys.
Afghan and Paki develop a secure Durand line (Durand Line, Talibans stealthborder...) and work together or blanket mine it except for controlled points of entry. Afghan has a right to a secure border when there is an invasion of Taliban killing their citizens.
There is no percentage for Afghan and Paki to get rid of the terrorists. When the GWOT is won, their subsidy from USA isn't going to be $10 billion a year. USA pulling out 100,000 troops will have the reverse effect of Regan's trickle down in their economys.
USA is there to HELP, NOT DO IT FOR THEM.
IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TRY, THEN WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PARADIGM.
USA should not be begging to stay but threating to leave.
Tell Paki and Afghan to get off their asses or they loose big money. Stop the corruption or go to prison. Make the aid subject to FBI scrutiny. Start putting the big crooks in prison.
UPDATE: AFTER PAKI TALIBAN INVADE AFGHAN AND ATTACK PRISION AFGHAN THREATENS TO INVADE PAKI TO GET BM. UPDATE: Pakistan's Plea For Patience The need for a response helps explain the speed with which Husain Haqqani has been shuttling around Washington. The former adviser to assassinated People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto presented his credentials as Pakistan's new ambassador in Washington on June 6. Within hours he was rushing to and from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and Congress in an attempt to buy tolerance -- and time -- for his fragile government.
I asked Haqqani if he and his new ministers in Islamabad had thought about what would happen to Pakistan and its newly reborn democracy if a major al-Qaeda attack against the United States succeeded and was traced back to the tribal areas. "What do you think keeps me up at night?" he answered. "We want to make sure that it doesn't come to that." Then he was off to the next stop on his tour, and his next plea for patience.
While on a virtual picnic on the WWW one of Company "C" troopers ran into ayatollah Farehd. And with her best charming virtual personalty got him to explain the Khamemini's secret war plans. this is what he said:
I am on the Iranian council, of Khamenei, ( his hat Was charming. )
I believe the Americans are a paper tiger. After all, we held Americans hostage for a year, have warred against them in Iraq, and done other stuff with no consequences meaningful to us.
I have lots of assets. I have a recently developed nuke, and means of delivery. I have Hezbollah, thus control Lebanon, an alliance with AQ, and relations with Hamas and Fatah as well. Have the ability to attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. My ally Syria has many of the missing weapons of Saddam. Iran 4 front missile comand.
I or my allies have agents in the US, Britain, and throughout Europe, in India, and worldwide. These agents have identified targets, and are ready to move. Probably have agents inside Israel, also ready.
I have alliances of a sort with Venezuela and North Korea. Though most Arab countries don't like me much, they like me better than the US and Israel, and we have important interests in common. I know things about them the west doesn't know. Plus I can intimidate them with my nukes.
Persians invented chess. So the plan includes surprise, misdirection and distraction. My pieces are in place, but timing is a question.
Even if US is a paper tiger, I want to act when US is weakest and most confused. Lame duck president is known to be aggressive, still capable of action. If I believe McCain is likely, November/December will be attractive. If Obama is likely, after January may be better. If I'm uncertain of being able to accurately gauge election probability, then right after a setback for Bush may be best. Considering experts in the US can't predict election results, the last may appeal most. Don't want to lose a window of opportunity.
The Supreme Court decision re Guantanamo, or something similar, might suffice as a setback for Bush.
Other factors re timing:
Wait: My weapons may need more testing/development. US displays increased aggression re Pakistan. AQ is not quite ready in Palestine. Recent attention to weapons I shipped to Hezbollah. If the nuke is ready, others factors are not too important.
Move ASAP: Political rebellion in Iran, supported by US, adds pressure to move when able. US gains in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey acts against terrorism. US distracted by major floods and election hoopla. I see most US alliances as weak right now. Israel ruler weakened, act before he is replaced.
Goal: wipe out Israel, humiliate the US, establish Iran as a power, and manipulate God into bringing the Mahdi now and making Islam supreme. This last makes sense to me, seems a reasonable undertaking. We have personal suicide bombing now the world will see State suicide nuclear bomb, to bring on the Mahdi.
Ally Syria distracts Israel with negotiations, the Golan issue appears plausible, provides potential hostages. Egypt negotiates re Hamas, may not relate to me, but I don't mind, muddies the water.
Once Israel is committed in Gaza, make a big political stink in the UN, rouse the ME street. At the same time, Venezuela and N. Korea make some waves, create a ruckus.Palestinian TERROR GROUPS
I plan to deter and dismay the US by a rapid succession of surprises: terror attacks on US homeland and ally Britain, attacks in India, and elsewhere. Particular focus on European attacks to defuse NATO. Iran's pay-for-performance ... Coordinated attacks in Iraq & Afghanistan using not only expected insurgents and techniques, but infiltrated agents. May use Saddam's weapons, might even threaten Baghdad with a nuke, play on Western humanitarian weakness. Hezbollah's Cyber attacks, disrupt communication. The longer it takes the US to assess the intent of the attacks, the more likely success.
I nuke Israel. Their retaliation will be confused, and my facilities are hardened. I have missile defense. Iran will push the button
Agents in Israel take control of possible assets, hostages, engage in terror strikes. Hezbollah attacks, Hamas uses advanced weapons I have supplied. Syria moves in. What Iranian forces can be spared from Iraq move in. I hope that Egypt and other Arab countries that hate Israel jump in, I have some influence in those countries. Persians SKUNK Arabs. My prediction is that once they see I meant what I said, they will be reluctant to defy the new regional power, and at the minimum will not interfere. My nuke will be influential.
A weapon is meaningless if its possessor is unwilling to use it. I believe the US will not use nukes at all - too timid and concerned about approval of world community. Israel might in retaliation, but not in initial attack. I believe I can prevent, withstand, or deter Israel's retaliation. I'm not concerned about the people of Iran, they exist to support the Islamic Revolution. Thus once I use my nukes, mine are more powerful than those belonging to the unwilling. If I can envelope and seriously menace Israel fast enough, Israel itself will be hostage against the US. Only rapid overwhelming force against Iran could stop me. I can then destroy Israel, while promising not to and engaging in diplomacy. Europe, and probably the US, will dither. China and Russia will only pretend to care.
Speed is essential. However if the attack on Israel is not successful within a couple days, need to be able to maintain the illusion of deniability ( al Qaeda ) and Hamas attacks to allow needed time to destroy Israel. Must maintain power of public opinion to hamstring action.
Once the US engages in defense of Israel, events become unpredictable, other countries including Russia and China engage, and the situation goes out of control. I can threaten the US and Europe that I still have agents in place for more terror attacks. I trust to my political skills to ride the tide of events, and hopefully the Mahdi will take charge then. Islam and sharia will reign.
A production of the staff at Company C. Sourced from still classified material from terrorist sites. Unreleased Paradigm Intel and posts linked in article .
GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in 1999: $ 270 billion
GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in 2007: $ 475.5 billion
Pak revenue collection 1999: Rs. 305 billion
Pak revenue collection 2007: Rs. 708 billion
Pak Foreign reserves in 1999: $ 700 million
Pak Foreign reserves in 2007: $ 17 billion
Pak Exports in 1999: $ 7.5 billion
Pak Exports in 2007: $ 18.5 billion
Textile Exports in 1999: $ 5.5 billion
Textile Exports in 2007: $ 11.2 billion
KHI stock exchange 1999: $ 5 billion at 700 points
KHI stock exchange 2007: $ 70 billion at 14,000 points
Foreign Direct Investment in 1999: $ 1 billion
Foreign Direct Investment in 2007: $ 8 billion
Debt servicing 1999: 65% of GDP
Debt servicing 2007: 26% of GDP
Poverty level in 1999: 34%
Poverty level in 2007: 24%
Literacy rate in 1999: 45%
Literacy rate in 2007: 53%
Pak Development programs 1999: Rs. 80 billion
Pak Development programs 2007: Rs. 520 billion
A fair assessment will show that Mr. Musharraf achieved an unexpected economic turnaround for Pakistan’s economy and proved wrong all skeptics who accused Pakistan of being a ‘national security state’ incapable of showing economic potential.
The events of 2007 and early 2008 have given a blow to Pakistan’s economic growth but nothing earth shattering. The fear is that the disruptive politics of the charge-sheeted PCO Judge Iftikhar Chaudhry, his chief backer Mr. Nawaz Sharif and other failed politicians might result in a fatal blow to Pakistan’s economic rise, which may take years to recover.
Top Spook: Facebookers, Gamers May Be Unfit to Spy.
By Noah Shachtman EmailJune 12, 2008 | 11:16:00 AM ..................... The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) -- which, in theory, oversees all of the country's intelligence services -- is looking to launch a series of research studies into "cyber-behavior." Because what wannabe spooks do on-line should play "an important part" in the "process for granting security clearances for personnel working in national security positions." Suspect activities include "social network usage," "compulsive internet use," "distribution of pirated materials," and "on-line contact with foreign nationals."
The first step is to get a "better understanding" of "which specific cyber-behaviors are normative, acceptable, or favorable as well as identifying those that may be associated with risky or problematic cyber behavior within the workplace."
Areas of potential interest include, but are not limited to: social network usage; disclosure of information in computer-mediated activities; extent of on-line contact with foreign nationals; cyber behavior that suggests an unwillingness to abide by rules; compulsive internet use; involvement in computer groups (especially those allied to stigmatized practices); providing false information within computer-mediated communications about oneself or others; procurement and distribution of pirated materials; engaging in deviant cyber-behaviors with the intention of causing harm to others including "hacking" and sabotage.
If Wired has this right, it is an example of the Paradigm prevalent across the board in Federal agencys and an example of why al Qaeda is setting the Internet Paradigm that is eating US militarys lucnch on the Internet, recruiting, funding, hacking, C2, etc.
Blocking someones security clearance for file sharing is like telling someone they can't become Police officers because they J-walk. ( I never file share for security reasons, but file sharing is almost a right of passage for adolescents. )
"Areas of potential interest include, but are not limited to: social network usage; disclosure of information in computer-mediated activities; extent of on-line contact with foreign nationals; cyber behavior that suggests an unwillingness to abide by rules;"
I hope Wired has this part wrong, but it sounds like these activities pre-employment show a disposition towards an unwillingness to abide by the rules.
This thinking precludes the type of personalities best suited to WWW Intelligence work.
On my staff of "cyber warriors" they must follow rules we set down. Or we bounce them.
But I want out of the box thinkers, troops that can easily bond with strangers, huge social networks, connected, and the more foreign contacts the better.
Defining hacking as deviant cyber-behavior, is an acknowledgment of the fear the Feds feel towards the Internet. The Feds don't rule the WWW and want to cut all risks. And an acknowledgment they fear they can't control a hacker.
This is equalivant to the Revolutionary war Military refusing anyone who has hunted with a long distance rifle, and classifying this type of hunting as "deviant hunting-behavior".
Criminal sanctions preclude us from hacking, but hackers , espically your own ar not to be feared. One must take certian security precautions. The computer you deal with hackers from can't have classified info on it, print it , then rescan ot into classified computers, they have not found a way to transmit a virus by paper yet.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- With Christmas 2005 approaching, the princes of al Qaeda's western command were gathering. They'd been summoned for something special: to plot a three-month campaign of coordinated suicide, rocket and infantry attacks on American bases, checkpoints and Iraqi army positions.
An Iraqi army officer shows a fake ID taken off an al Qaeda suspect in Mosul in May.
In al Qaeda in Iraq's hierarchy, prince designates a senior leader, and these princes had been gathered by the most senior among them, the prince of Anbar province itself.
This commander, his name not recorded in al Qaeda's summaries of the meetings and referred to only by rank, spent that December fleshing out his vision for the wave of assaults with the gathered subordinates who would lead his combat brigades.
With the operation approved, the prince of Anbar listened to the briefings of his assembled commanders: the chairmen of both his military and his security committees, plus the various princes from the sectors he controlled -- Falluja, Ramadi, Anbar-West and Anbar-Central. All boundary demarcations strikingly similar to those used by the American soldiers they were fighting.
Anderson Cooper 360°
"360°" sorts through one of the largest collections of al Qaeda documents to fall into civilian hands. Tonight, 10 ET on CNN
The overall plan, too, was similar to any that the U.S. army would devise. First, the military committee chairman outlined plans to seal off the U.S. targets as much as possible by harassing supply lines, damaging bridges and targeting helicopters and their landing zones, in a bid to restrict reinforcement or resupply.
Then the security chairman spoke of the need to maintain strict "operational security," ordaining that only the princes, or leaders, involved in the meetings be informed of the grand strategy, leaving cell leaders and battalion commanders to believe their individual attacks were being launched in isolation.
All this would be Phase I, a precursor to the 90 days of attacks of Phase II, to be timed across not just Anbar but across much of Sunni Iraq to stretch and distract America's war commander, Gen. David Petraeus.
Flowing from the memo approving Operation Desert Shield, a stream of reports follow.
On January 7, 2006, a memo called for Iraqis who'd infiltrated various U.S. bases to conduct site surveys to help identify the camps that would be hit. The two-page note also spoke of placing ammunition stores well in advance of the attacks so the fighters could resort to them during the battles.
The January memo also commented on training and rehearsals for the offensive and the extraction routes their fighters would use after the attacks, and it dictated the need to obtain pledges from the foot soldiers of their willingness to die.
Al Qaeda's methods
Abandoned vehicles, dead animals and other objects are loaded with explosives and detonated by remote control as the target passes by.
Suicide attacks are executed by means of explosive-laden vehicles or individuals wearing vests packed with explosives.
The name represents a variety of artillery rockets, most frequently 122 mm. They have little guidance but are a favorite weapon of terrorist groups.
In another memo, reports were compiled from al Qaeda field commanders recommending which U.S. Army and Marine bases or Iraqi checkpoints or police stations should be targeted. Baghdad International Airport was one of the targets named. Beside each entry were notes on weapons each target would require: Grad surface-to-surface missiles, Katyusha rockets, roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
Phase II, the 90-day offensive, commenced around March 2006, with al Qaeda's records from Anbar that month reading like a litany of what the U.S. Army would call AARs, or After Action Reports, listing each attack's successes and failures. It also noted the losses suffered by both al Qaeda or, in what Americans would call Battle Damage Assessments, the losses suffered by the coalition.
Al Qaeda's folder on Operation Desert Shield expresses the depth, structure and measure of its military command. It is perhaps the most compelling illustration of how al Qaeda works.
Yet the Desert Shield folder is but one found among the thousands of pages of records, letters, lists and hundreds of videos held in the headquarters of al Qaeda's security prince for Anbar province, a man referred to in secret correspondence as Faris Abu Azzam.
After he was killed 18 months ago, Faris' computers and filing cabinets were captured by anti-al Qaeda fighters from a U.S-backed militia, or Awakening Council (the militias made up of former Sunni insurgents, now on the U.S. payroll and praised by President Bush for gutting al Qaeda in Iraq). The Awakening militiamen handed the massive haul of al Qaeda materials to both their U.S handlers from the Navy, Marine Corps and Army, and to CNN.
In all, these Anbar files form the largest collection of al Qaeda in Iraq materials to ever fall into civilian hands, giving an insight into the organization that few but its members or Western intelligence agents have ever seen.
Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, the American military's spokesman in Baghdad, says the document trove is unique, "a kind of comprehensive snapshot" of al-Qaeda during its peak.
"It reveals," Driscoll said, "first of all, a pretty robust command and control system, if you will. I was kind of surprised when I saw the degree of documentation for everything -- pay records, those kind of things -- and that [al Qaeda in Iraq] was obviously a well-established network."
That network is now under enormous stress, primarily from the more than 100,000 nationalist insurgents who formed the Awakening Council militias and initiated an extremely effective assassination program against al Qaeda, but also from recent U.S. and Iraqi government strikes into their strongholds.
As a result, says Lt. Col. Tim Albers, the coalition's director of military intelligence for Baghdad, "al Qaeda in Iraq is fighting to stay relevant."
Awakening Councils are civilian Sunni Muslim groups and their militias that have organized to oppose al Qaeda in Iraq.
So, what do these captured documents from 2006 tell us about al Qaeda in Iraq today? A lot, according to a senior U.S. intelligence analyst in Iraq, who cannot be named because of the sensitivity of his position.
"We're still finding documents like these throughout the country, but I would say that's starting to lessen in amount as the organization shrinks," the analyst said.
The al Qaeda command mechanism and discipline seen in the documents, he said, persist.
"The hard-core senior leadership is still trucking along, and there are always going to be internal communications, documents and videos," he said.
With as many as six suicide attacks and three car bombings in the past 10 days in Iraq (including one attack that killed a U.S. soldier and wounded 18 others), Driscoll agrees the picture the documents paint of a well-oiled, bureaucratic organization is relevant today.
"Certainly, we see that in several different ways how they communicate ... as they've got to be able to talk to their troops in the field to maintain morale, especially when we're pursuing them very aggressively," Driscoll said.
Be it then, in 2006, or be it now, al Qaeda in Iraq is nothing if not bureaucratic.
Included in the headquarters of the security prince, Faris, are bundles of pay sheets for entire brigades, hundreds of men carved into infantry battalions and a fire support -- or rocket and mortar -- battalion. To join those ranks, recruits had to complete membership forms.
"These are the application forms filled in by the people who join al Qaeda," Abu Saif said, holding one of the documents obtained by CNN. Until recently, Abu Saif was himself a senior-level al Qaeda commander.
"They took information about [the recruits], and if the applicant lied about something -- because they were investigated -- they would whip him," Abu Saif said.
Induction into al Qaeda, he said, would take up to four months. In one case, Abu Saif recounted, an applicant lived for four months at the home of what he thought was a local supporter of the organization providing a safe house. Finally accepted and called to a cell leaders' meeting, he discovered that his host was actually a senior recruiter who'd been studying his every move for those four months.
Al Qaeda's bookkeeping was orderly and expansive: death lists of opponents, rosters of prisoners al Qaeda was holding, along with the verdicts and sentences (normally execution) the prisoners received, plus phone numbers from a telephone exchange of those who'd called the American tip line to inform on insurgents, and motor pool records of vehicle roadworthiness.
And there are telling papers with a window into al Qaeda's ability to spy on its pursuers. One is a document leaked from the Ministry of Interior naming all the foreign fighters held in government prisons. Other documents discuss lessons al Qaeda learned from its members captured by American forces and either released or still in U.S.-run prisons. The leadership studied and discussed the nature of the American interrogations, the questioning techniques used and the methods that had been employed to ensnare its men.
And an Iraqi contractor even wrote the Anbar security prince, asking permission to oversee a $600,000 building project on a U.S. base, attaching the architectural drawings of the bunkers he was to make, with an offer to spy and steal weapons during the construction.
It seems al Qaeda in Iraq is almost as pedantically bureaucratic as was Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, a trait that really shouldn't surprise.
Though al Qaeda was denied a foothold in Iraq during Hussein's regime, with its ideology unappealing to the mostly secular professional military officers in the former dictator's armies, that has now changed.
According to the internal al Qaeda correspondence in the files, Iraqis have taken to, and effectively run, al Qaeda in Iraq. Foreign fighters' roles seem mostly relegated to the canon fodder of suicide attacks.
Though the upper tiers of the organization are still dominated by non-Iraqis, in Anbar, at least, all the princes and brigade and battalion commanders are homegrown.
"Correct. They're all Iraqis," Abu Saif said. "In my house [one time], there were about 18 Arab fighters under Iraqi commander Omar Hadid, mercy of God upon him, and the [foreigners] did not object, they just did their duty."
That Iraqification of the network is what perhaps enabled al Qaeda to foresee its demise years before the Americans did.
Documents from 2005 and 2006 show that top-ranking leaders feared the imposition of strict religious law and brutal tactics were turning their popular support base against them.
One memorandum from three years ago warned executions of traitors and sinners condemned by religious courts "were being carried out in the wrong way, in a semi-public way, so a lot of families are threatening revenge, and this is now a dangerous intelligence situation."
That awareness led al Qaeda to start killing tribesmen and nationalist insurgents wherever they began to rally against it, long before America ever realized that it had potential allies to turn to.
Yet those same practices that accelerated al Qaeda in Iraq's undoing were breathtakingly documented.
In a vein similar to the Khmer Rouge's grisly accounting of its torture victims, within the files of one al Qaeda headquarters in Anbar alone was a library of 80 execution videos, mostly beheadings, none of which had been distributed or released on the Internet. And all were filmed after al Qaeda in Iraq ended its policy of broadcasting such horrors.
So why keep filming? According to former member Abu Saif and the senior U.S. intelligence analyst, to verify the deaths to al Qaeda superiors and to justify continued funding and support.
The videos also bear insight into al Qaeda's media units. Raw video among the catalog of beheadings shows how al Qaeda's editing skills hide not just its members' faces (caught in candid moments on the un-edited films) but also their failures.
When three Russian diplomats were kidnapped and killed in June 2006, a well-polished propaganda piece was released. It showed two diplomats being gruesomely beheaded, and yet the third diplomat was shot with a pistol, in a different location. The full video of the slayings answers why.
Though bound and blindfolded, the third diplomat struggled so defiantly that his ailing executioners could not draw their knife across his throat. In the horrific and chaotic scenes, the faces of his killer and the cameraman are seen.
And those scenes, like the intricacy of the prince of Anbar's planning and internal analysis of Operation Desert Shield, reveal an al Qaeda in Iraq that the world still barely knows.
Civilian Irregular Market-State National Security Operators
Cannoneer No. 4 | Monday, 2 June 2008
The new SERVIAM is out. Commander Joseph A. Gattuso, USN (Ret.) has an article in it entitled Trading Places: How and Why National Security Roles Are Changing which fits in nicely with recent discussions on this blog and elsewhere of non-military, non-governmental responses to threats to the security of the United States. Don’t agree with all of it, but here are the good parts. Bolding added by me.
. . . the nation-state (1860–1990), which had as its legitimizing basis welfare of every individual. This is the form of governance with which most are familiar. In the nation-state, a collection of individuals gives the governing entity power to govern; in turn, the governing entity agrees to ensure the material well-being of the governed. Like the state-nation before it, the nation-state form of governance is rapidly losing its legitimacy because it can no longer execute its fundamental purpose: to assure the material well-being and security of those it governs.
What he calls a nation-state sounds like a welfare-state to me.
There are many reasons for this erosion of the nation-state’s ability to keep its people either safe or prosperous: the ubiquitous nature of information; the ease with which money, culture, and disease cross national borders; the increase in transnational threats such as famine, migration, environmental problems, and weapons of mass destruction; a globalized economy eroding middle-tier wages; and the concept that human rights transcend a nation’s sovereignty and that human values are best determined by the calculus of apportioned economic advantage. The nation-state form of governance is disappearing, and a new form is emerging.
The welfare-state promised more than it could deliver. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the bargain. The welfare-state implies actually obtaining happiness is something the state should guarantee.
This new kind of governance is known as a market-state, described fully in Philip Bobbitt’s The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History. Where the nation-state derived its legitimacy from an agreement to provide for the material well-being of its constituents, the market-state derives its legitimacy from an agreement that it will maximize opportunity for its citizens.
Because of computers, communications, and weapons of mass destruction, the enemies of our civilization live in the private sector. They express their anger and frustration in the private sector, against private citizens, and against our civil infrastructure, most of which is now in the hands of the private sector. When attacking those in the public sector— for instance, attacks against coalition soldiers in Iraq—they attack while swimming in Mao’s private sector sea. They do not attack on a conventional battlefield in ranks with tanks; they shoot from houses, rooftops, or alleys, or they fire mortars from the midst of martyr-minded women and children, all within the private sector. If Iran or North Korea attacks us, do we seriously think they will attack our military? National security has been removed from the unambiguous, ordered realm of governments and thrown squarely into the bitter, bloody, goldfish-bowl arena of the private sector.
For example, within hours of a surgical Israeli airstrike, Hezbollah knows which families need blankets, food, power, water, or medical attention and supplies. Hezbollah faithful are on the ground immediately, distributing $100 bills to families (in the private sector) who have suffered loss or damage. Hezbollah will race in with dead bodies of women and children in an ambulance, demolish the structure to make it appear as though there was wanton destruction, remove the bodies from the ambulance, place them dramatically in the rubble, invite the media in to film the scene, and then gather their grisly props and race to another media opportunity. The world gasps.
With significant hesitation, most market-state nations, the United States and Britain as the main examples, have decided that they will conduct a proxy fight, using private sector elements to outsource the fight against their private sector enemies. Times have changed: assuring national security requires fighting for it in the private sector, with the force most suited to that battlespace.
PESHAWAR (AFP) - Pakistan condemned a "cowardly" US air strike that killed 11 Pakistani troops near the Afghan border on Wednesday".
The attack on a checkpost in Pakistan's volatile tribal zone was the first of its kind.
A Pakistani army spokesman "condemned this completely unprovoked and cowardly act" and blamed the coalition for the "aerial attack" that destroyed a paramilitary post in the Mohmand tribal region, a statement said.
It confirmed that 11 soldiers were killed including an officer.
"The incident had hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror," it quoted the spokesman as saying.
Pakistan had lodged a strong protest with the coalition, it said.
Heavily armed local tribesmen brandishing rocket launchers and Kalashnikov rifles gathered near the checkpost in the mountainous Gora Prai area to show their support after the attack, residents said.
Pakistani security officials said the deaths came after Afghan troops crossed the porous frontier and tried to occupy the strategic Pakistani post in the troubled tribal belt, which borders eastern Afghanistan.
The post was in an area that has long been disputed between the two countries.
Pakistani troops repulsed the Afghan soldiers and the coalition then bombed the area. Coalition aircraft also killed around 15 Taliban militants about a kilometre (half a mile) away, the officials said.
A spokesman for Pakistani Taliban militants, Maulvi Omar, said eight "mujahideen (holy warriors)" were killed in an air strike by coalition helicopters.
He also said the rebels had shot down a coalition helicopter and captured seven Afghan soldiers when they were returning from "attacking" the post. There was no confirmation of either claim.
The Drug-Terrorist Link Means Wars can Last Indefinitely
By Douglas Farah
The Brits are finally willing to lay out some of the truths about the war in Afghanistan, truths that apply in many other parts of the world, in a pattern that we continue to see growing.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a confidential report to the prime minister concludes that the drug trade will prolong the Taliban insurgency idenfinitely:
"Growing links between the drugs trade and the insurgency in the South will provide longevity to the Taliban," the UK document says. "In the south, the drugs trade is fuelling the insurgency."
It adds: "This is compounded by government corruption. Karzai chooses to avoid rocking the boat with powerful narco figures and has not blocked their appointment as governors or other senior officials."
In turn, Mr Karzai's failure to tackle corruption and the drug lords "only increases popular disillusion," further boosting the insurgency, the paper says.
In fact, almost half (19 of 43) foreign terrorist organizations designated by the United States have clear ties to drug trafficking networks, according to law enforcement studies.
Once the initial ideological or theological obstacles have been overcome in participating in the drug trade, terrorist organizations tend to dominate the structure in short order. This is true with the FARC in Colombia, the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Hezbollah in the heroin trade when it was massively involved there in the last decade, and elsewhere.
The reason is that the terrorist/military organization usually brings muscle that the traditional organizations can't dispute, and a clandestine, compartmentalized structure suited to moving the product successfully.
In the short term, the alliances tend to work well because, as the case with the Karzai government, the government corruption due to drug traffickers erodes faith in the government, while the money the terrorist/criminal organizations accrue can be use for social services, weapons, trainers and winning hearts and minds.
In addition, the terrorist/insurgent groups lose their dependency on outside forces. They generate their own money, rather than relying on donations from Saudi Arabia, the former Soviet bloc, Venezuela etc., freeing them from the constraints that having to factor in the effect of their actions on their patrons. My full blog is here.
OK supply/demand & risk/reward raitos, are only laws the narco boys live by. The supply of drugs out of Afghan is at a record level and that translates into cheaper prices in Afghan than S. America.
Risk/reward ratios, South America or Afghan? About the same legal risks, and Afghan has some security benefits with heavily armed terrorists.
So supply/demand & risk/reward ratios, are more favorable in Afghan for drug traffickers vs S. America.
How can that be reversed? USA is the biggest consumer of these drugs, USA is funding the terrorism thru criminal channels in the purchase if illegal drugs. The war on drugs has had little effect and cost billions of dollars.
A change of drug laws could bring the terrorist funding to a DEAD stop. So Reversing the supply demand paradigm, Legalizing drugs would end the profits in drug trafficking and funding of terrorism. The war on drugs increases the profits for drug dealers, and thereby the motivation.
If drugs were legal and whiskey was illegal in USA the taliban would have huge stills operating in Afghan.
CIA wet ops against drug cartels dealing with Afghan narco terrorist will increase the risk in the risk reward ratio, making buying drugs in South America safer, thereby cutting off the terrorist funding ( Cartels would quit buying drugs in Afghan, it would be safer to buy from S America. ). By defining drug cartels dealing with the Taliban as terrorists, we would have legal precedent to use military force and WAR "rules of engagement " against those drug cartels. ie Kill the drug cartel heads on sight.
That would rebalance the risk/reward ratio. ........................
Shift production, keep drugs illegal but making growing poppies legal in USA. That would shift poppy production form Afghan to USA, and cut off terrorist funding in Afghan.
USA does have options, I don't know what the correct balance is. But the current drug paradigm works in favor of the drug cartels and terrorists.
Image via WikipediaElements of Pakistan's ISI and its paramilitaries are actively backing Taliban insurgents and if their sanctuaries in the country are not eliminated, the efforts of the US and its allies to stabilise and rebuild Afghanistan will be in jeopardy, a leading US think-tank has warned.
The study by Rand Corporation, funded by the US Department of Defence, finds that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate and Frontier Corps have failed to root out Afghan insurgent groups based in Pakistan and, in some cases, individuals from these Pakistani organisations have provided direct assistance to such groups as the Taliban and Haqqani network.
"Every successful insurgency in Afghanistan since 1979 enjoyed safe haven in neighbouring countries, and the current insurgency is no different," said report author Seth Jones, a senior political scientist at Rand.
"Right now, the Taliban and other groups are getting help from individuals within Pakistan's government, and until that ends, the region's long-term security is in jeopardy," the study titled "Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan," says.
It noted that insurgent groups have successfully established a sanctuary in Pakistan.
Highly placed source which has proven reilable in the past reports:
Bosnian security sources have made it known that large quantities of weapons and explosives have been smuggled into Croatia from Bosnia in recent months. Reports indicate that Bosnian 'Wahabis' in co-operation with al-Qaida cells are responsible. Reports have named Vladimir Popilovski, Kemal Alagic, Semsudin Mehmedovic,Naser Panaslamovic, and Omer Murselovic as being responsible or purportedly connected to the shipment. However, no arrests have yet been made. \
UNCONFIRMED. Any named can ask for retraction or correction by emailing me.
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA): The Position of the IEA on the Peace Accord in Pakistan.
June 7, 2008
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate and Merciful. Peace in any part of the world serves the
interests of humanity and holds benefit for the people.
YES PRAISE ALLAH.g ( MY COMMENTS IN CAPS, FOR EASE OF READING )
We consider the peace accord in Pakistan
as an internal affair, which pertains to that country alone—yet the occupation forces in
Afghanistan and the forces hostile to Islam around the world oppose this peace accord and argue
it will lead to an escalation in jihadi activities in Afghanistan. This claim is groundless and it is far
from the truth. Since 2001,
BATULLA HAS SAID HE WILL SEND TROOPS TO AFGHAN AND SOME OF HIS TROOPS WERE'
RECENTLY KILLED THEIR, YOUR FIRST LIE.G
the resistance against the crimes of the occupation forces in
Afghanistan has grown stiffer with each passing year. In this context, 2007 was the bloodiest and
filled with the most horrific events for the enemy. All expectations and predictions were that, in
2008, the resistance against the occupation would continue to increase and be stronger than
ever before, and that is what has actually happened.
According to the plans prepared by the Islamic Emirate,
CORRECTION YOU MEAN THE PLANED totalitarian STATE, G.
the armed jihad against the enemy has
undergone a dramatic escalation, and thus the regime in Kabul and its foreign supporters have
raised this issue for several reasons:
1.) The occupying forces and their supporters are facing total defeat in Afghanistan,
therefore, they are trying to use these kind of statements and claims in order to distract the gaze
of the Afghans and the rest of the world in another direction—so that the Afghan resistance will
appear to be weak.
HMMM I SEEM TO REMEMBER THE TALIBAN RUNNING LIKE LITTLE GIRLS FROM AFGHAN TO PAKI
NOT SO LONG AGO.G.
2.) In order to keep the flame of its propaganda battle alive, the enemy in Afghanistan and across
this region has caused public uneasiness, as it has used violence in this affairs in order to assure
the success of its campaign.
THE TALIBAN IS USING KIDS FOR SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND EVEN TO CUT THROATS AND BEHEADING PEOPLE.
WHOM IS USING VIOLENCE, BOMBING MARKET PLACES, MOSQUES AND FUNERALS? G
3.) The occupying forces wish to present Pakistan to the Afghans as an enemy overstepping all
bounds, and through this, they seek to lay the groundwork in the public consciousness to accept
their presence, occupation, and their future existence.
YOU ARE CONFUSING THE TALIBAN WITH THE PAKI GOVERNMENT, DON'T DO THAT.
TALIBAN RUN FROM PAKI TO AFGHAN TO FIGHT AND WHEN THE TALIBAN IS BLODDIED AND BEAT
THEY RUN LIKE LITTLE GIRLS BACK TO PAKI. G
4.) Since Pakistan is the only nuclear-armed Islamic force in the world, the forces hostile to Islam—
led by America—
THE THIRD LIE, I CAN TELL WHEN YOU LIE, YOUR LIPS MOVE.
AMERICA IS NOT HOSTILE TO ISLAM, AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN HAVE KILLED MORE MUSLIMS THAN
AMERICANS. WHOM IS HOSTILE TO ISLAM? WHO KILLS CHILDERS WOMEN AND BOMBS MOSQUES? G.
are preparing themselves in order to interfere in her affairs under these
pretenses, in order to weaken this Islamic state.
WHO IS BLOWING UP POWER PLANTS, OIL PLANTS , CELL PHONE TOWERS?
WHO IS FIGHTING THE ISLAMIC STATES IN AFGHAN AND PAKI? G.
5.) The United States and those in league with her are entangled in serious problems and an
unexpected insurgency in Afghanistan—and now they are trying to win the favor of other
international governments using various strategies in order to lure them to come and jointly fight
against the Muslims.
CAN YOU TYPE ONE SENTANCE WITHOUT LYING? THEY ARE FIGHTING AL QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN
WHO CLAIM TO BE ISLAMIC, AGAIN ANOTHER LIE, ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM FOR THAT. G.
In this context, they have exerted pressure on the new Pakistani
government and the political circles behind it in order to use them to further their cause in
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,
OH YES WE REMEMBER THE LAST EMIRATE OF AFGHAN, 108 TRIBAL LEADERS WERE KILLED BY TALIBAN,
CLOSED SCHOOLS FOR WOMEN, NO SMOKING, NO VIDEOS OR EVEN MUSIC, YES WE REMEMBER, G.
hopes that the nations of the world, including Pakistan, and
individual people would seek to make decisions according to their own national interests,
IF THEY EVER GET TOGETHER, AND SHAKE THEIR FEAR OF YOU , THE TALIBAN WILL BE DEAD, g.
regardless of any kind of external pressures. America and her agents face a historic, total defeat
in Afghanistan, and this defeat shall mark the beginning of the end of her oppressive policies
WHO HAS OPRESSIVE POLICYS, CUT MENS TONGUES OUT, KILLED FATHERS IN FRONT OF CHILDREN, RAPED
AFGHAN WOMEN, BOMBED MOSQUES, FUNERALS KILL CHILDREN? G.
across the entire world. Allah the Exalted wills it, and no one is mightier than Allah... Allahu
Akhbar, and may the honor go to Allah, his messenger, and the believers.
WE WILL SEE WHAT ALLAH WILLS/:
MUSLIM KILLING MUSLIM, ALL FOR PERSONAL GLORY OF A FEW munaafiqeen.
al Qa'ida has taken a switch to the Lion and now wants Islam to bare the burden.
Allah is great,
Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allâh, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of the (false moujadeem), Tâghût (Satan). So fight you against the friends of Shaitân (Satan). Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitân (Satan the false Moujahedeen ). ] al-Nissa:76.
Allah said : (Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion -the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.) 55,AlNOOR.
Allah said: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." 33:Al-Maeda .