You are hereBlogs / dlindorff's blog / Afghanistan: Incubator for Green Energy
Afghanistan: Incubator for Green Energy
By John Grant
The only way to survive such an insane system is to be insane oneself.
- Joseph Heller
When the going gets weird, the weird go pro.
- Hunter Thompson
The Pentagon has its hands full in Afghanistan trying to make the debacle there look like a success for the December assessment it must provide President Obama.
The brilliant counterinsurgency theorist General David Petraeus is “pulling out all the stops,” according to The New York Times. He has expanded hunter/killer special-ops raids to a dozen a night, and he has pressured the CIA to ramp up its already heavy rate of drone attacks.
We no longer have body counts as in Vietnam, but the killing pace is on the rise to clear out insurgent leadership – or anyone, in COIN parlance, who is “irreconcilable” to US interests.
At the same time, a contrite Petraeus is apologizing profusely to the leaders of Pakistan for a cross-border helicopter raid that chopped up several Pakistani soldiers. This is in addition to the usual denial-then-apology cycle for the almost-weekly civilian deaths from the special-ops raids and drone attacks.
The Pakistanis are so furious over the cross-border helicopter raid they stopped US convoys delivering vital fuel into Afghanistan at the Khyber Pass, leading to at least 35 fuel trucks being torched and destroyed by either organized insurgents or members of the large and growing population of Pakistanis who hate our guts.
Then, there’s the case of outright psychopathic murderers in US uniform, such as Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs who stands accused of killing Afghan civilians for sport and collecting souvenir fingers.
Petraeus has pressured the reluctant Pakistani military to attack insurgent elements in the Pashtun border areas, and now Pakistani soldiers have been caught on video lining up six young, blindfolded civilian males and gunning them down. We find this offensive, since we do our killing discriminately – or by killing people who get in the way of our super lethal weapons, then apologizing.
“I am appalled,” says Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He has threatened this “could have implications for future security assistance to Pakistan.”
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai’s large extended family has become a vast and corrupt network of powerful blood-cronies. Like the Taliban, Karzai is a Pashtun; he is from Kandahar, the Pashtun heartland. He is reportedly convinced the US is going to abandon him, which has motivated him to secure his power base one deal at a time, since that’s the way it has been done for thousands of years. The Washington Post reports that he and the Taliban are in secret talks with terms for US withdrawal on the table.
The military goes green
Despite the July 2011 withdrawal date, the US shows no signs of leaving any time soon. The military has even decided to go green. No kidding. The Pentagon is launching a major, multi-decade R&D effort to run its war machine on alternative energy....
For the rest of this article by JOHN GRANT in ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent alternative online newspaper, please go to: ThisCantBeHappening!
- dlindorff's blog
- Login to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
I don't like some things about this article.
People should not say that a "large and growing population of Pakistanis who hate our guts", because that can "help" to fuel hatred of the Pakistanis among imbecile Americans. Another reason is because it reflects a very bad or poor understanding of reality. It's not that more Pakistanis "hate our guts". Instead, it's more Pakistanis having greater, increased reason to hate our policies more than before.
But saying more of them "hate our guts" risks giving racist, bigotted and war-supporting Americans more reason to continue to support the war and to be racist. It's careless.
Re. the 35 fuel trucks:
According to the sources, below, a lot more than 35 NATO fuel supply trucks were hit; while other types of NATO supply trucks, for other supplies, were also hit.
"Impasse of US-NATO Military Adventure:
Coalition loses 150 Tankers in Pakistan"
by Syed Moazzam Hashmi, Xinhua, Oct. 9th, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21371
A dozen people on 4 motorcycles? They must have large motorcycles.
Re. whether NATO's "feeling the pinch" on its supply convoys, it's very likely; since it's been reported that hundreds of these trucks travel from Pakistan to Afghanistan every day, until the Pakistani government recently established the blockade, that is. But that evidently also means that most of the trucks or convoy vehicles haven't been torched or bombed, so it'd mainly be the blockade that would be causing welcome problems for NATO forces.
"Video: NATO Truck Massacre: More tankers torched in Pakistan" (0:41)
by RussiaToday, Oct. 9th, 2010
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m70601
Yep, completely "torched".
The two articles, below, aren't about all of the NATO supply trucks hit since the start of this month, btw.
"Afghanistan: 57 NATO Tankers Set Ablaze in Fresh Assaults"
by Daily Times Pakistan, Oct. 7th, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21342
"US apologies for killing troops fail to halt Pakistan blockade"
by Bill Van Auken, WSWS.org, Oct. 8th, 2010
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m70542
Bill Van Auken also refers to two possible explanations for who is or might be responsible for these attacks, while his article also provides information about tensions between the governments of the U.S. and Pakistan. I'm only excerpting what he wrote about the attacks on the NATO supply convoys though.
I wouldn't recommend relying on what the Washington Post says. If people pay reasonable attention to what gets posted at Uruknet.info, then people will find that the Taliban repeatedly refuse to negotiate until the U.S. and its foreign allies leave, and that they perceive President Karzai as a puppet of the U.S. If that's true, and it likely enough is, then they would likely not accept to negotiate with him and the government that the U.S. put in place there before the U.S. and its foreign allies leave Afghanistan.
From what I've gathered, the Taliban negotiations talk has all been western news media and politics talk.
The U.S. making the Karzais rich:
"The Karzai Family Fortune, Courtesy of U.S. Taxpayers"
by Michael Tennant, TheNewAmerican.com, Oct. 9th, 2010
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m70608
It's a short article, but it provides considerably more information about other war-profiteering Karzai family members, plus one who has refused to leave the U.S. to join with the others who left to profit in Afghanistan.
President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun and purportedly was once a Taliban, according to some people anyway, but he left and became employed by Chevron. The Taliban know that history and if they are aware of what the above article says, then I wonder if they'd still consider him one of them; if and when the U.S. and its foreign allies end their occupation of Afghanistan and leave, that is. They might prefer to give the death or else long prison sentences to him and his war-profiteering family members, who likely enough would not feel safe in Afghanistan after the U.S. or Western forces left.
The Taliban apparently help the poor; the Karzais clearly get racketeeringly rich from the U.S.-lead war there. Maybe they'd negotiate anyway, but I doubt that the Taliban really care to do that with Hamid Karzai. He's sometimes made public statements condemning killings by the U.S. and NATO, but is still President in a puppet government of the U.S.-lead occupation and the Taliban definitely know this.
Some American political leadership publicly complain about him, or do so through news media that report these purported complaints, but it can be all political staging.
He hasn't asked for the U.S. and NATO to leave, they aren't leaving for a very long time to come, and they could ensure fair elections there, if the U.S. leadership wanted this. Fair elections there could, if not would, be bad news for the western war elites and imperialists.
I'll be excerpting from the full copy of the article.
That sounds like a lot, but is still lacking some information. How much fuel did the trip use up? The ship surely didn't travel at less than 10 knots all that distance. Or would it? How much fuel per nautical mile does the ship burn, and how many nautical miles was this trip? If the 900,000 gallons saved is 1% or 2% of the total fuel it'd take to do this trip, then not really much was saved.
What, and get whole populations stoned? War elites do like pacified populations when warring on and robbing them.
Just joking, btw; but the war elites do like pacified and dumbed down populations, that's for sure.
Are we really supposed to think this war tech. is cool just because it's "green"? Stopping U.S. militarism is what's needed. Changing domestic bases so that they use "green" energy tech. would be good; but we don't need war tech.
And since he brought up Iraq, here's a news update.
"New ‘Green Zone’ emerging in Baghdad"
by Ali Shitab, Azzaman.com, Oct. 9th, 2010
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m70596
This U.S. is [not] planning on leaving Iraq for a [long] time. Even if the U.S. military and political leaders went green in the face, then it still certainly doesn't look like the U.S. will be leaving Iraq for a long time to come.