PAKISTAN Special

By: Shaukat Qadir

India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive

Finally, some American analysts have acknowledged that New Delhi is actively involved in destabilising the Pakistani province of Balochistan. They have also come to the realisation that it is also funding some of the Taliban.

Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, has published this discovery, supported by the large variety of speakers at a round table conference held recently in Washington.

The speakers at the conference included Christine Fair, a senior political analyst formerly at the RAND Corporation; Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution; Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-born American citizen; and Ashley Tellis, the author of “India’s emerging nuclear doctrine”, published by RAND in 2001.

When Ashley asked me to comment on his work, I wrote back: “You have provided India with a nuclear doctrine that no one in India could have come up with, and have legitimised it through the RAND.”

With such participants, the conclusion is indisputable, but the US chooses to consider the evidence inconclusive. Though not when the evidence is against Pakistan!

I am prepared to believe that Pakistan, through Bangladesh, is involved in supporting insurgencies in India. The reasons are obvious: India is a far larger country, with greater resources and, in due course, is likely to outstrip Pakistan, economically and militarily, unless bled constantly.

Indian involvement to destabilise Pakistan is less easily understood, except as a tit-for-tat response, because it cannot take possession of Balochistan, and if Pakistan implodes India will face disastrous consequences.

A tit-for-tat response has its own logic and, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, many Indian analysts, convinced of the Indian military’ inability to gain a decisive victory against Pakistan, suggested this policy.

One of them, Bharat Karnad, ex-member of the Indian national security advisory board, even sent me his article for ‘comments’. However, if the outcome of such a policy is as obviously self-defeating in the long run; perhaps India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive.

I am a reluctant believer in conspiracy theories, but the writings of Charles Ferndale, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery and Israel Shahak — not to mention Noam Chomsky — have half-convinced me that central to the Israeli Zionist — mind you, all Jews are not Zionists; Jews have their extremists, just like Muslims and Christians and Hindus have theirs — survival theory is that no regional power in its vicinity should be capable of confronting it militarily. Thus Iraq’s nuclear capability had to be destroyed, Iran prevented from getting there and, since Pakistan is already there, it must be destroyed from within. If this be so, theorists contend that the US and India are unwitting pawns in the hands of Israeli Zionists.

That would explain a number of inexplicable pieces of information. However, many of these could also result from the ineptitude of the CIA, a conclusion I strongly subscribe to, as well as policies for short-term political gains by Indian politicians. Take your pick.

The vast, silent, and irrelevant majority amongst the Mehsud tribe have no love lost for Baitullah, the undisputed Taliban leader of their tribe. I am reliably informed that he is rolling in dollars and has access to highly sophisticated light weaponry. Now he could have got these from a number of sources; India, Israel, Iran, Russia, or even the US.

I am also reliably informed that Baitullah Mehsud is in possession of highly sophisticated communication equipment and what are presumably homing devices. That narrows the field a little: Israel, the US, or Russia.

I am also, not so reliably, informed that there are strong rumours afloat that Baitullah Mehsud has been in touch with the CIA.

We know for certain that the Pakistan army has been asking the US for help in ‘taking out’ Mehsud and has on at least four different occasions provided the US with accurate information of his location over a period of twelve to twenty four after the US was informed, but he was never targeted.

We also know that US drone attacks have been more successful in the last few months and that their kill ratio of militants to innocent people has increased dramatically in favour of militants killed.

However, if my information is correct, that there are less than twenty hard-core Al Qaeda personnel present in each tribal area, not a single one of them has been successfully targeted. In fact, almost all of the militants killed in the Mehsud area were lowly soldiers, many of them Uzbeks and, according to some Mehsuds, some of those killed included those who disputed Baitullah’s leadership.

With a puzzle as disconnected as this, the dotted lines can be connected in many different ways to lead to widely divergent conclusions. I will leave it to the readers to arrive at their own conclusions. However, I will adjure them to bear in mind that the US refused to target Baitullah Mehsud on a number of occasions, despite Pakistani requests and accurate information on his location for many hours, and that no really high value target has ever been hit in the Mehsud area.

Each time a hit on a high value target has been claimed, it has been refuted within hours, sometimes days, occasionally even months later.

I leave it to you to dot the lines, but this time I am almost certain that there is a conspiracy; let each of you decide where it leads.

P.Symonds has been just to the point while exposing US' designs and stretegy. You see how it all fits in. You see what's behind all the hu ha about terrorism. You unleash terror so you get away with terror. Age old imperial game but this time Washington’s moves will not go unopposed...

BY: Peter Symonds

Comments by China’s ambassador in Islamabad last Thursday highlight the reckless character of the Obama administration’s escalating intervention in Pakistan. By pressuring Islamabad to wage an all-out military offensive against Islamic insurgents in the Swat Valley and neighbouring districts, Washington is not only destabilising Pakistan but raising tensions in a highly volatile area.

Speaking to Pakistani business leaders, Chinese ambassador Luo Zhaohui pointedly voiced concern about the growth of “outside influence” in the region. He singled out the US in particular, saying that China was worried about US policies and the presence of a large number of foreign troops in neighbouring Afghanistan. While reiterating China’s support for “the fight against terror,” Luo declared that US strategies needed some “corrective measures”. He added, “These are issues of serious concern for China.”

Luo’s unusually blunt remarks came just one day after US President Obama spoke to his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao. While a number of issues were discussed, the escalating war in Pakistan was clearly high on the agenda. This first publicised phone call between the two men came as Obama met with the Afghan and Pakistani presidents over US strategy in the two countries. While Hu reportedly offered his cooperation, Luo’s comments express China’s underlying fears over growing US influence in South Asia.

Last week’s tripartite summit in Washington signalled a major upsurge in military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under intense pressure from the US, the Pakistani army has launched a large-scale offensive against militants in the Swat Valley in which hundreds have already died and hundreds of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee. The summit, however, involved more than discussions on military cooperation, outlining comprehensive plans for the closer economic and strategic integration of the two countries into an American sphere of influence.

China, which has longstanding ties with Pakistan, is obviously disturbed by these developments. As Ambassador Luo told his business audience, more than 60 Chinese companies are involved in 122 projects in Pakistan. He noted the “close liaison” with Pakistan over the security of over 10,000 Chinese engineers and technical experts in the country. In fact, Beijing has previously insisted on reprisals over the abduction and killing of Chinese citizens by Pakistani militants as well as military action against Islamic Uighur separatists from western China taking refuge in Pakistan.

More fundamentally, Beijing regards Islamabad as a crucial partner in its own regional strategy. China devoted considerable resources to building up Pakistan as a counterweight to India after the 1962 Sino-Indian border war. Pakistan is the largest purchaser of Chinese arms and, according to the Pentagon, accounted for 36 percent of China’s military exports between 2003 and 2007. Chinese technical assistance was critical to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.

In return, China received the green light to build a major naval/commercial port facility at Gwadar, a coastal town in Baluchistan. The port is the linchpin of Beijing’s “string of pearls” strategy to establish access for its expanding navy to a series of ports along key sea routes across the Indian Ocean—above all, to protect oil and gas supplies from the Middle East and Africa. For its part, the US, which regards China as a rising economic and strategic rival, is determined to maintain its military, including naval, predominance.

US-China tensions over Pakistan only highlight the deeply destabilising role of Washington’s aggressive intervention, firstly in subjugating Afghanistan, and now in seeking to bring Pakistan more directly under its sway. The escalating conflict in Pakistan is a direct product of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which the Bush administration forced Pakistan to support under the threat of becoming a military target itself. Widespread opposition inside Pakistan and Afghanistan to US actions has fuelled a growing insurgency that threatens not only the US occupation of Afghanistan, but a full-scale civil war in Pakistan.

US imperialism, under the Obama administration, is determined to exploit the very disasters it has created in order to advance its strategic interests throughout the broader region, especially in energy-rich Central Asia. By doing so, Washington is fundamentally altering the precarious strategic balance and threatening to draw the other major powers into the vortex.

China is not alone in its fear of US designs in Central Asia and the presence of large numbers of foreign troops in Afghanistan. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US has been seeking to establish military alliances and economic ties with the newly established Central Asian Republics. Washington exploited its invasion of Afghanistan to establish military bases in Central Asia for the first time. Afghanistan and Pakistan also provided a potential alternate pipeline route to extract energy riches from the region. In response, China and Russia, which both regard the region as their backyard, came together in the Shanghai Cooperation Group to counter expanding American influence.

Neighbouring India is also watching events in Pakistan with trepidation. While quietly applauding Washington’s pressure on Islamabad to wage war against “terrorism”, New Delhi is concerned that Pakistan’s closer incorporation under the American umbrella may lead to the downgrading of the US-Indian strategic partnership, which only developed in the late 1990s. The weakening of rival Pakistan, against which India has fought three wars, is no doubt welcomed in New Delhi. But its replacement by a US client state, or worse its collapse into chaos, would only confront the Indian establishment with new uncertainties.

The entire region remains a potential powder keg. The Cold War certainties that divided the world between the Soviet and Western blocs have been replaced by new tensions and rivalries. Tentative steps by India and Pakistan to resolve their longstanding disputes, especially over Kashmir, have all but stalled. Efforts by China and India to improve relations have moved slowly. Each continues to eye the other with suspicion and to intrigue at each other’s expense in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma.

The most explosive ingredient in this volatile mixture is the attempt by US imperialism to use its military superiority to offset its long-term economic decline. Far from easing tensions, the installation of the Obama administration marked an aggressive new turn in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan aimed at advancing US ambitions. Last week’s comments by China’s ambassador are another sign that Washington’s moves will not go unopposed.

By: Dr Akmal Hussain

The speech by Sufi Muhammad, leader of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi, before a huge crowd in Mingora (Swat) last Saturday, represents a critical moment in the crisis of the Pakistani state. It clearly laid out the ideological framework within which the Taliban seek to achieve power and establish governance in Pakistan.

The Sufi specified the following six important postulates, which made clear the strategic objective of overthrowing the existing constitutional order of Pakistan:

1. He asserted that sharia (as interpreted by the Taliban) is seen as divine law.
2. He defined a Muslim not just in terms of someone who believes in the Oneness of God and the fact that Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet of God, but as one who supports and helps to implement the sharia.
3. He stipulated that the existing democratic order was an “un-Islamic system of the infidels” and that supporting such a system was a great sin.
4. The persistence of the “un-Islamic system of the infidels”, in his view, would destroy Pakistan and that he and his supporters would defend the country in the sense of attempting to establish their version of the sharia.
5. The superior courts of Pakistan were seen as part of the un-Islamic system of infidels and therefore rejected as institutions where legal appeals against qazi courts were to be made. Instead, he claimed that such appeals would be made before the soon to be formed institution of Darul Qaza.
6. The Nizam-e Adl (the system of justice established in Swat) as an application of the Taliban version of sharia under the “peace deal” was seen by the Sufi as only the first stage of the implementation process of sharia. According to him, sharia would be completed when it encompassed the institutional structures of Pakistan’s polity, economy and education.

These six postulates taken together constitute an ideological clarion call to all Muslims to join in the struggle of the Taliban to overthrow the existing democratic constitutional order in Pakistan for the establishment of their version of an Islamic state.

In this sense, Swat, like the other areas in the NWFP occupied and governed by various Taliban groups, is a base area from which the ideological, political and military struggle to establish a Taliban state in Pakistan is to be conducted.

Of course, the government regards the compromise in Swat as a “peace deal”, even though the TNSM has clearly stated that they will only provide peace if their version of sharia is implemented. The question is: Will they stop at Swat or pursue their broad strategic goals in the rest of Pakistan once Swat is secured?

Clearly there is a high quality military mind behind the Taliban strategy. In the first phase, large swathes of FATA were captured and a system of governance established by the Taliban at the level of a system of justice, the provision of livelihood for the poor, and a system of recruitment and military training. In the second stage, they enlarged their territorial control over some of the settled areas of the NWFP.

At the same time, guerrilla raids were conducted on key targets in the major cities of the country. The purpose was to undermine the confidence of the citizens in the ability of the state to fulfil the most basic function in terms of which it seeks legitimacy: protection of life of its citizens.

In the third stage, there is a shift from the valleys to the urban centres where strongholds have now been established. These strongholds of urban guerrillas are located in major cities such as Peshawar in the north, Lahore in the east, Multan and Karachi in the south and Quetta in the west. Pakistan is encircled by urban guerrilla forces poised to unleash mayhem of an intensity and scale unprecedented in Pakistan. If and when this happens, it could be a prelude to takeover.

The events in Swat fit a pattern of strategy that is slowly being unveiled. Only time will tell whether the Swat deal will give “peace in our time” as Chamberlain put it or will constitute what Churchill called the “end of the beginning”.

For many Pakistanis who are now leaving the country, this is the beginning of the end. It is time for the government, the military and the people of Pakistan to grasp the significance of the historic speech by Sufi Muhammad.

By: URI AVNERY

169 years before the Gaza War, Heinrich Heine wrote a premonitory poem of 12 lines, under the title “To Edom”. The German-Jewish poet was talking about Germany, or perhaps all the nations of Christian Europe. This is what he wrote (in my rough translation):

For a thousand years and more
We have had an understanding
You allow me to breathe
I accept your crazy raging

Sometimes, when the days get darker
Strange moods come upon you
Till  you decorate your claws
With the lifeblood from my veins

Now our  friendship is firmer
Getting stronger by the day
Since the raging started in me
Daily more and more like you.

Zionism, which arose some 50 years after this was written, is fully realizing this prophesy. We Israelis have become a nation like all nations, and the memory of the Holocaust causes us, from time to time, to behave like the worst of them. Only a few of us know this poem, but Israel as a whole lives it out.

In this war, politicians and generals have repeatedly quoted the words: “The boss has gone mad!” originally shouted by vegetable vendors in the market, in the sense of “The boss has gone crazy and is selling the tomatoes at a loss!” But in the course of time the jest has turned into a deadly doctrine that often appears in Israeli public discourse: in order to deter our enemies, we must behave like madmen, go on the rampage, kill and destroy mercilessly.

In this war, this has become political and military dogma: only if we kill “them” disproportionately, killing a thousand of “them” for ten of “ours”, will they understand that it’s not worth it to mess with us. It will be “seared into their consciousness” (a favorite Israeli phrase these days). After this, they will think twice before launching another Qassam rocket against us, even in response to what we do, whatever that may be.

It is impossible to understand the viciousness of this war without taking into account the historical background: the feeling of victimhood after all that has been done to the Jews throughout the ages, and the conviction that after the Holocaust, we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.

WHEN THE killing and destruction in Gaza were at their height, something happened in faraway America that was not connected with the war, but was very much connected with it. The Israeli film “Waltz with Bashir” was awarded a prestigious prize. The media reported it with much joy and pride, but somehow carefully managed not to mention the subject of the film. That by itself was an interesting phenomenon: saluting the success of a film while ignoring its contents.

The subject of this outstanding film is one of the darkest chapters in our history: the Sabra and Shatila massacre. In the course of Lebanon War I, a Christian Lebanese militia carried out, under the auspices of the Israeli army, a heinous massacre of hundreds of helpless Palestinian refugees who were trapped in their camp, men, women, children and old people. The film describes this atrocity with meticulous accuracy, including our part in it.

All this was not even mentioned in the news about the award. At the festive ceremony, the director of the film did not avail himself of the opportunity to protest against the events in Gaza. It is hard to say how many women and children were killed while this ceremony was going on – but it is clear that the massacre in Gaza is much worse than that 1982 event, which moved 400 thousand Israelis to leave their homes and hold a spontaneous mass protest in Tel-Aviv. This time, only 10 thousand stood up to be counted.

The official Israeli Board of Inquiry that investigated the Sabra massacre found that the Israeli government bore “indirect responsibility” for the atrocity. Several senior officials and officers were suspended. One of them was the division commander, Amos Yaron. Not one of the other accused, from the Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, to the Chief of Staff, Rafael Eitan, spoke a word of regret, but Yaron did express remorse in a speech to his officers, and admitted: “Our sensitivities have been blunted”.

BLUNTED SENSITIVITIES are very evident in the Gaza War.

Lebanon War I lasted for 18 years and more than 500 of our soldiers died. The planners of Lebanon War II decided to avoid such a long war and such heavy Israeli casualties. They invented the “mad boss” principle: demolishing whole neighborhoods, devastating areas, destroying infrastructures. In 33 days of war, some 1000 Lebanese, almost all of them civilians, were killed – a record already broken in this war by the 17th day. Yet in that war our army suffered casualties on the ground, and public opinion, which in the beginning supported the war with the same enthusiasm as this time, changed rapidly.

The smoke from Lebanon War II is hanging over the Gaza war. Everybody in Israel swore to learn its lessons. And the main lesson was: not to risk the life of even one single soldier. A war without casualties (on our side). The method: to use the overwhelming firepower of our army to pulverize everything standing in its way and to kill everybody moving in the area. To kill not only the fighters on the other side, but every human being who might possibly turn out to harbor hostile intentions, even if they are obviously an ambulance attendant, a driver in a food convoy or a doctor saving lives. To destroy every building from which our troops could conceivably be shot at – even a school full of refugees, the sick and the wounded. To bomb and shell whole neighborhoods, buildings, mosques, schools, UN food convoys, even ruins under which the injured are buried.

The media devoted several hours to the fall of a Qassam missile on a home in Ashkelon, in which three residents suffered from shock, and did not waste many words on the forty women and children killed in a UN school, from which “we were shot at” – an assertion that was quickly exposed as a blatant lie.

The firepower was also used to sow terror – shelling everything from a hospital to a vast UN food depot, from a press vantage point to the mosques. The standard pretext: “we were shot at from there”.

This would have been impossible, had not the whole country been infected with blunted sensitivities. People are no longer shocked by the sight of a mutilated baby, nor by children left for days with the corpse of their mother, because the army did not let them leave their ruined home. It seems that almost nobody cares anymore: not the soldiers, not the pilots, not the media people, not the politicians, not the generals. A moral insanity, whose primary exponent is Ehud Barak. Though even he may be upstaged by Tzipi Livni, who smiled while talking about the ghastly events.

Even Heinrich Heine could not have imagined that.

THE LAST DAYS were dominated by the “Obama effect”.

We are on board an airplane, and suddenly a huge black mountain appears out of the clouds. In the cockpit, panic breaks out: How to avoid a collision?    

The planners of the war chose the timing with care: during the holidays, when everybody was on vacation, and while President Bush was still around. But they somehow forgot to take into consideration a fateful date: next Tuesday Barack Obama will enter the White House.

This date is now casting a huge shadow on events. The Israeli Barak understands that if the American Barack gets angry, that would mean disaster. Conclusion: the horrors of Gaza must stop before the inauguration. This week that determined all political and military decisions. Not “the number of rockets”, not “victory”, not “breaking Hamas”.

WHEN THERE is a ceasefire, the first question will be: Who won?

In Israel, all the talk is about the “picture of victory” – not victory itself, but the “picture”.  That is essential, in order to convince the Israeli public that the whole business has been worthwhile. At this moment, all the thousands of media people, to the very last one, have been mobilized to paint such a “picture”. The other side, of course, will paint a different one.

The Israeli leaders will boast of two “achievements”: the end of the rockets and the sealing of the Gaza-Egypt border (the co-called “Philadelphi route”. Dubious achievements: the launching of the Qassams could have been prevented without a murderous war, if our government had been ready to negotiate with Hamas after they won the Palestinian elections. The tunnels under the Egyptian border would not have been dug in the first place, if our government had not imposed the deadly blockade on the Strip.

But the main achievement of the war planners lies in the very barbarity of their plan: the atrocities will have, in their view, a deterrent effect that will hold for a long time.

Hamas, on the other side, will assert that their survival in the face of the mighty Israeli war machine, a tiny David against a giant Goliath, is by itself a huge victory. According to the classic military definition, the winner in a battle is the army that remains on the battlefield when it’s over. Hamas remains. The Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip still stands, in spite of all the efforts to eliminate it. That is a significant achievement.

Hamas will also point out that the Israeli army was not eager to enter the Palestinian towns, in which their fighters were entrenched. And indeed: the army told the government that the conquest of Gaza city could cost the lives of about 200 soldiers, and no politician was ready for that on the eve of elections.

The very fact that a guerrilla force of a few thousand lightly armed fighters held out for long weeks against one of the world’s mightiest armies with enormous firepower, will look to millions of Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims, and not only to them, like an unqualified victory.

In the end, an agreement will be concluded that will include the obvious terms. No country can tolerate its inhabitants being exposed to rocket fire from beyond the border, and no population can tolerate a choking blockade. Therefore (1) Hamas will have to give up the launching of missiles, (2) Israel will have to open wide the crossings between the Gaza Strip and the outside world, and (3) the entry of arms into the Strip will be stopped (as far as possible), as demanded by Israel. All this could have happened without war, if our government had not boycotted Hamas.

HOWEVER, THE worst results of this war are still invisible and will make themselves felt only in years to come: Israel has imprinted on world consciousness a terrible image of itself. Billions of people have seen us as a blood-dripping monster. They will never again see Israel as a state that seeks justice, progress and peace. The American Declaration of Independence speaks with approval of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. That is a wise principle.

Even worse is the impact on hundreds of millions of Arabs around us: not only will they see the Hamas fighters as the heroes of the Arab nation, but they will also see their own regimes in their nakedness: cringing, ignominious, corrupt and treacherous.

The Arab defeat in the 1948 war brought in its wake the fall of almost all the existing Arab regimes and the ascent of a new generation of nationalist leaders, exemplified by Gamal Abd-al-Nasser. The 2009 war may bring about the fall of the current crop of Arab regimes and the ascent of a new generation of leaders – Islamic fundamentalists who hate Israel and all the West..

In coming years it will become apparent that this war was sheer madness. The boss has indeed gone mad – in the original sense of the word.

BY: BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

 “Peace for all children,” said Obama. But does he include Palestinian children? Will he continue to stand with Israel, the country that has laid waste a land and murdered or maimed hundreds?

Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were pretty close, politically and personally. They led the fight against fascism in the early 1940s, and although they had their disagreements they got on well. They were both blunt in their views, but there was no doubt who was the more powerful: Roosevelt called the shots, although Churchill had a lot of influence on him. But it would have been unthinkable for Churchill to behave in the way that the present (though not for long) prime minister of Israel did on January 8 with the (now mercifully departed) president of the United States.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, who has been forced to stand down because of allegations of corruption, telephoned George W Bush to make the latter alter his orders to his secretary of state to support a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The barely believable transcript of Olmert’s boasting of his success is on public record.

He said: “I [Olmert] spoke with him [Bush]; I told him: You can’t vote for this proposal. He said: listen, I don’t know, I didn’t see, don’t know what it says. I told him: I know, and you can’t vote for it! He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it.”

There is no other person in the world who could say such words to a president of the United States. And will Olmert’s successor be able to speak with Bush’s successor in the same way and with similar results?

The next Israeli prime minister could be Tzipi Livni or Binyamin Netanyahu, both steel-minded sadists and dedicated haters of Palestinians and Arabs in general. Will they be able to call President Obama to suggest forcefully that he alter the voting intention of the United States of America at the UN Security Council? And what would he do if they did?

Given the commitment to Israel of Mr Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as was obvious in their grovelling speeches last year to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, which apparently runs American politics, there is no guarantee that either of them will utter a word in criticism of Israel.

One thing is certain: the US Congress is going to continue its unconditional support for Israel, no matter what war crimes are committed by its disgusting thugs-in-uniform. The politicians need the money, after all, which they get through political action committees, which are generously funded by American Jews. And they are scared to political death by the threat that pro-Israel agencies will destroy their careers if they dare say a word against Israel.

So the US House of Representatives rushed to praise Israel and endorse its merciless airstrikes and committed America to a motion “recognising Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

Few Americans know about the hideous barbarity in Gaza, because their networks and newspapers rarely carry pictures of disfigured blood-splashed children who have been killed, maimed or orphaned by the Israelis. But elsewhere we have access to TV channels and newspapers that are very different from the pliant pro-Zion patsies of the major news outlets in the US. (The New York Times did not print Olmert’s orders to Bush. Surprise, surprise.)

And if US TV channels carried pictures like the ones we see, there would be such outbursts of horror and indignation that even the US Congress might be forced to condemn the Israeli fascists for their barbarity. But the all-powerful Israel lobby makes sure that little of the sort will appear.

Only five honourable members of the House voted against unconditional support for Israeli killing of Palestinians, and one was Representative Dennis Kucinich who put forward the case for their vote when he said: “In Gaza, the United Nations gave the Israeli army the coordinates of a UN school, and the school was then hit by Israeli tank fire, killing about 40. The UN put flags on emergency vehicles, coordinating the movements of those vehicles with the Israeli military, and the vehicles came under attack, killing emergency workers. The Israeli army evacuated 100 Palestinians to shelter, and then bombed the shelter, killing 30 people.”

Blunt stuff, but it cut no ice with the 390 members of the House who voted to encourage Israel to continue its killing.

The Israelis have killed 1300 Palestinians, and the UN reports that at least 700 of these deaths were civilians, and that half of these were women and children. One million of Gaza’s 1.5 million people have no electricity, and about 750,000 are without water. They are living in conditions of appalling squalor and fear, with US-supplied helicopter gunships and F-16s having destroyed their houses and schools and killed their children. Yet America voted for Israel. And the president of the United States jumped to obey the Israeli prime minister.

Will there be any change under Obama and Clinton?

A year ago, Hillary Clinton told AIPAC: “we stand with Israel because of our shared values and our shared belief in the dignity of men and women and the right to live without fear or oppression.”

Last June Barack Obama told AIPAC: “Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel.”

“Peace for all children,” said Obama. But does he include Palestinian children? Will he continue to stand with Israel, the country that has laid waste a land and murdered or maimed hundreds?

If he does, the question must be: who calls the foreign policy shots in America?

BY: SOBIA ADIL

Pakistan today experiences an increased level of conflict and a perception is being built to undermine its military capability.

In this context, America's approach needs to be seen in the context of its long-term strategic interests in the region, which forces it to engage with Pakistan. However, to achieve this it pursues a policy of controlled chaos enabling it to keep the option of political and military intervention alive.

In the case of Pakistan this shifting of conflict and creation of chaos serves the interests of most of the regional stakeholders and power-brokers operating inside Afghanistan. The coalition finds benefit in reduction of military operations on its side. Afghanistan finds it beneficial because the world's attention is diverted towards Pakistan. India is obviously happy, and so is Russia, while Iran is content since because its potential economic competitor – Pakistan – is handicapped by persistent security concerns.

In this regard the worrisome aspect is that while the US can pinpoint even a needle on the ground from space, it never finds sufficient evidence of miscreants hostile to Pakistan. One never reads about any Predator strike in terrorist sanctuaries in Swat and Bajaur. Neither has one heard of any blocking position by coalition and Afghan forces opposite Bajaur, where the militants flee and find sanctuary. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the conflict in FATA and elsewhere in the NWFP is being aided and abetted by Washington.

Another contributing factor is the increased presence of US Special Forces in the region and the presence of mercenaries in the garb of contractors and representatives of NGOs operating on both sides of the border. These elements provide security to individuals/organisations. They are reported to be extensively employed in conjunction with SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and the CIA. These former soldiers are mercenaries not constrained by any rules of engagement. Around 30,000 work in Afghanistan and many operate near and around FATA.

Yet another contributor worth evaluating is the arrangement of sustaining coalition forces in Afghanistan. On average, around 2,000 trucks travel every month through Pakistan and this operation is managed by the US Embassy through private contractors. The contents of these trailers are not known to Pakistan. The arrangement is a security hazard, to say the least.

The solution to extremism is not a military one and instead requires a long-term approach which can change hearts and minds. Of course, this requires patience and resources – America doesn't have the former while Pakistan does not have the latter.

Those who advocate more vigorous military action in FATA should understand that this will only complicate matters. The Karzai government and the coalition have of late sought to engage with the Taliban in Afghanistan and we must try and do the same on our side of the border. To win peace we should undertake selected operations against hostile foreign elements, and that too only if the coalition gives us matching support from the other side of the border.

By no means is one advocating any disengagement with America, for it is a relationship that is significant and must be pursued. However, what is needed is critical evaluation of the relationship and the drawing of a red line, so to speak, which Pakistan should refuse to cross since it will be at the expense of its own national and security interests. Furthermore, the engagement should not be limited to one with a primarily military nature and should be extended to cooperation with civil society, Pakistani think tanks, political institutions, the media and in the form of increased people-to-people contact.

By: JOHN GRAY

Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over.

You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity.

The setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking. With the nationalization of crucial parts of the financial system, the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy.

China, in particular, was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are going bust.

Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world. Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its overstretched military commitments.

Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future. The dire condition of America's financial markets is the result of American banks operating in a free-for-all environment that these same American legislators who have been debating a bail-out created. It is America's political class that, by embracing the dangerously simplistic ideology of deregulation, has responsibility for the mess.

In current circumstances, an unprecedented expansion of government is the only means of averting a market catastrophe. The consequence, however, will be that America will be even more starkly dependent on the world's new rising powers. The federal government is racking up even larger borrowings, which its creditors may rightly fear will never be repaid. It may well be tempted to inflate these debts away in a surge of inflation that would leave foreign investors with hefty losses.

In these circumstances, will the governments of countries that buy large quantities of American bonds - China, the Gulf states and Russia, for example - be ready to continue supporting the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency? Or will these countries see this as an opportunity to tilt the balance of economic power further in their favour? Either way, the control of events is no longer in American hands.

The fate of empires is very often sealed by the interaction of war and debt. That was true of the British Empire, whose finances deteriorated from the First World War onwards, and of the Soviet Union. Defeat in Afghanistan and the economic burden of trying to respond to Reagan's technically flawed but politically effective Star Wars program were vital factors in triggering the Soviet collapse. Despite its insistent exceptionalism, America is no different. The Iraq War and the credit bubble have fatally undermined America's economic primacy.

The US will continue to be the world's largest economy for a while longer, but it will be the new rising powers that, once the crisis is over, buy up what remains intact in the wreckage of America's financial system.

There has been a good deal of talk in recent weeks about imminent economic armageddon. In fact, this is far from being the end of capitalism. The frantic scrambling in Washington marks the passing of only one type of capitalism - the peculiar and highly unstable variety that has existed in America over the past 20 years. This experiment in financial laissez-faire has imploded. While the impact of the collapse will be felt everywhere, the market economies that resisted American-style deregulation will best weather the storm.

The irony of the post-Cold War period is that the fall of communism was followed by the rise of another utopian ideology whereby in America and Britain, and to a lesser extent other Western countries, a type of market fundamentalism became the guiding philosophy. The collapse of American power that is under way is the predictable upshot. Like the Soviet collapse, it will have large geopolitical repercussions. An enfeebled economy cannot support America's over-extended military commitments for much longer. Retrenchment is inevitable and it is unlikely to be gradual or well planned.

Meltdowns on the scale we are seeing are not slow-motion events. They are swift and chaotic, with rapidly spreading side effects.

Consider Iraq. The success of the surge, which has been achieved by bribing the Sunnis, while acquiescing in ongoing "ethnic cleansing", has produced a condition of relative peace in parts of the country. How long will this last, given that America's current level of expenditure on the war can no longer be sustained?

An American retreat from Iraq will leave Iran the regional victor. How will Saudi Arabia respond? Will military action to forestall Iran acquiring nuclear weapons be less or more likely?

China's rulers have so far been silent during the unfolding crisis. Will America's weakness embolden them to assert China's power or will China continue its cautious policy of "peaceful rise"?

At present, none of these questions can be answered with any confidence. What is evident is that power is leaking from the US at an accelerating rate. Georgia showed Russia redrawing the geopolitical map, with America an impotent spectator.

Outside the US, most people have long accepted that the development of new economies that goes with globalisation will undermine America's central position in the world. They imagined that this would be a change in America's comparative standing, taking place incrementally over several decades or generations. Today, that looks an increasingly unrealistic assumption.

Having created the conditions that produced history's biggest bubble, America's political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of the dangers the country now faces. Mired in their rancorous culture wars and squabbling among themselves, they seem oblivious to the fact that American global leadership is fast ebbing away. A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
The big picture for Pakistan should be more visible now in terms of what the US agenda is for this country. But that agenda has been carefully operationalized since the opportunity presented itself to the US in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 – in which, by the way, no Pakistani was involved. Some of us have been highlighting that agenda for some years since, and also pointing out how complicity of our leadership was a requirement for that agenda to continue moving ahead. And what is that agenda?

Clearly, it involves the US creating space within the tribal areas to move in militarily and eventually restructure the whole Muslim nuclear entity of Pakistan. Attacking civilians and thereby creating chaos and panic which would inevitably lead to a mass displacement and add to the pressure on the central government in Islamabad. Also, knowing full well – after all if we can conclude that such killings will create more space for extremists and terrorists, one can assume the US analysts and advisers must have done the same – that by unleashing a war against our tribals and abusing our sovereignty they will create more space for the terrorists; and thereby more reasons to further destabilise us from outside while we face increasing attacks from our home-grown terrorists. Let us not fool ourselves – the US is no friend but a powerful enemy and its ultimate aim is to defang us in terms of our nuclear assets. Already the statements have become more honed in terms of our nuclear assets – both directly, in terms of a bizarre fear that our nukes will fall into "terrorist" hands even though it is the US that seems to have a problem of loose nukes (remember the US planes flying with such weapons only last year?); and, indirectly, by having their politicians and some international agencies build up a crescendo of Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world and a new "war zone".

That was the first phase of the plan for Pakistan. As the US war on terror has unfolded in our part of the world, we have suddenly seen the emergence of a Tehrik-i-Taliban, Pakistan and countless other militant groups – some of whom were raised and funded by the CIA in earlier years and may well have sustained that linkage. The most aggressively loyal Pakistanis of the tribal belt have now been turned into challengers of the writ of the Pakistani state. Is it not worth understanding why and how? We are being forced into accepting the US war now as "our war" although in reality while we are facing a severe threat from extremists and home grown terrorists, our fight against these forces has to be different from the US war on terror. That is still not our war but is in fact fuelling and aggravating our terrorist problems.

Now the US has moved to phase two where it is actually seeking direct intervention on the ground before it finally puts international pressure on us to hand over our nuclear assets – showing the world how Pakistan has indeed become a "war zone" in which the international community must intervene to take charge of the nuclear assets. Of course, the US would then offer to head such a mission. Seems far fetched? Then recheck what has been happening in terms of US policy vis a vis Pakistan since 9/11 and the statements emanating from the US at the official and media levels.

As for us Pakistanis, we are being confronted with a two-front war: against a qualitatively new terrorist threat in terms of suicide bombings and the growth of a violent extremism; and, against an indirect war being conducted by the US against our long term survival as an independent nuclear state. But, as I stated at the beginning, none of the US agenda would be feasible without the support of the Pakistani rulers. Unfortunately this support has been there from the start but now it has reached new proportions.

During the Musharraf government we were given many briefings to the effect that the US and NATO/ISAF could only intrude aerially into our space with our permission. As a perturbed pilot informed me the other day, he was shocked to learnt that apart from the UAVs flying into Pakistani air space, NATO and ISAF aircraft are flying round the clock tactical missions in Pakistan. Apparently, they have been cleared by our controllers' to fly tactical in FATA, "Pukhtunkhwa" and Balochistan. The Musharraf government had also given unprecedented access to the US in terms of bases and intelligence. But our democratic leadership has gone even further in affecting unilateral compromises, including it now appears permission to hit and kill our own people, which impact our very survival as an independent nuclear entity.

Regardless of how our own Goebbels tries to explain away the Zardari interview to the Wall Street Journal, the quotes speak for themselves and nor has a correction been sought or offered on either side. First there is the absurd style of reference President Zardari uses when talking of Pakistan and its institutions as his personal fiefdom, "my F-16s", "my security personnel" (that is the military) "my war" and so on. And of course he wants the world to "give me" $ 100 billion!

More damaging though is his declaration that not only is he "an American friend" but that the US is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. His logic for insisting the US support his government also undermines Pakistan because he seeks to show that if he falls our nukes will fall into terrorist hands. Is this how he protects our national interests? Now if his wish of accessing our strategic institutions with his cronies and the like is fulfilled, we may as well hand over all our assets to the US – and now, by default, given the Indo-US strategic partnership, to India.

But then, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it seems our president has no understanding of our history since he declares grandly, "India has never been a threat to Pakistan". Please, Ms Rehman, at least teach him some basic history and you do not have to use Pakistani sources either! As for his comment on the Indo-US nuclear deal – which even more rational US analysts have decried as a factor in upping the nuclear arms' levels in South Asia, our ignorant President sees it merely as the "largest democracy" in the world "getting friendly" with the "oldest democracy" in the world!

In fact, he sees his own country simply as a backyard to serve Indian development. As for the poor Kashmiris, they have been labelled "terrorists" for seeking liberation from Indian occupation! To our shame, a Pakistani ruler's effigy was burnt for the first time since 1979, in Baramulla town in Occupied Kashmir with 400 Kashmiris defying curfew to express their anger at the Zardari labelling of the Kashmiri freedom fighters as "terrorists". So far, Zardari has certainly been good news only for the US and India!

If Musharraf was forced to compromise with the US – although now his compromises appear miniscule when compared to what the present government is giving to the US – to ostensibly sustain himself in power then what is our present leadership so worried about in terms of the US? Are there still some dangerous skeletons despite the NRO that the US can utilise to keep the democratic dispensation in line with its eventual goal of ending the nuclear Pakistani state as we know it?

If the present trends continue we may well eventually confront a civil war across the country. This is exactly the situation the US is seeking to come in fully and set up its own quisling set up. As we and the US know, there have always been many in our leadership only too willing to play that role. As for the present leaders, their embarking on the road to power may well have been prepared in Washington, but it is Pakistan's realities that will ensure their stay in or removal from power. Can they manage to get out of the US embrace to see their own realities?

As I write these lines, somewhere in US Bush and Co are giving final touches to intended action plan against Iran . Indicators are that US is very much likely to go ahead with it’s plans within forty or fifty days from now.

Extraordinary and impressive preparations have been made for it which include strategic positioning of US forces in and around gulf and successful placing of pro US governments in countries like Germany, France and Italy (CIA, MI-8 and Mossad must have worked over time to achieve this) Additionally the strategic petroleum reserve of US has been beefed up to last for     at least three years in the event of a disruption of oil supplies. Needless to point out the horrendous impact of this enormous oil buying spree of USA on world economy. Are US’ European allies also busy storing the precious commodity for that rainy day? Sure they are.

What exactly will USA’s action against Iran be like? Will it be confined to bombing of the nuclear facilities and infrastructure alone or it will also commit it’s ground troops? In the first case US will obviously attempt to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, causing obvious disruption to oil supplies to the countries like China in particular and Europe in general. This may well be a brief campaign spread over a couple of months. In the second case (though it seems less likely) committing ground troops will essentially mean a forced regime change and  physical occupation of Iran’s oil facilities (as in case of Iraq) leading to a  consolidation of US’ position in the region that will actually mean presence of US (or so called NATO forces) in Iran for a long time in future.

But why act against Iran at this point of time? Reasons are few but clear. One, Iran ’s becoming a symbol of defiance against US in the Muslim world is unacceptable to Zionist world. In this role Iran actually appears to have taken over the traditional role of Muslim World’s leadership from Saudi Arabia . Therefore like Libya and Iraq, Iran must also face the menace and be punished well and proper.  Two, by only targeting Iran, USA aims to achieve other strategic benefits in context to China, Asia and Middle East . And since Obama almost surely destined to win the presidential campaign, is understood to be against the plan against Iran, Bush is hell bent on fulfilling it’s commitment to Israel (and the Zionist world) before departure from white house.

One may wonder as to what can be likely reaction of China . So far Chinese leadership has resolved to confine themselves to the development of Chinese economy and look the other way when it comes to US’ adventurism. Of late it has however been visibly busy adopting measures to secure the long stretching sea lanes that remain vital for it’s ever increasing oil supplies. How far can it tolerate a direct impact on oil supplies caused by a US action against Iran remains to be seen. However an underestimation of a likely reaction by China may prove to be a very serious mistake on part of USA .

What does it all implicate for Pakistan who is already bleeding and struggling to survive in the post 9/11 times?  Just the other day Mike Mullar was here. One can safely assume what guarantees and support he may have been seeking from Pakistan besides the usual absurdity covering the so called “war on terror. “

Needless to mention the advance elements already placed in Pakistan like Helliburton, G4S and an assemblage of various NGOs that remain poised to take on an active role and keenly support US forces when time comes. These are the elements that will eventually host and facilitate launching of operations of companies like Blackwater.

An action against Iran is going to translate into compounding of Pakistan ’s wows in many ways. Rebellious Baloch Sardars are likely to be more active after discovering a larger playfield as they may be eyeing the parts of Balochistan in Iran and Afghanistan too. There will be a sure upsurge in activities of BLA and Jandullah who are already being actively supported by CIA for ulterior motives. Turmoil in NWFP is already risen way up the red marker.

In fact in the aftermath of bombing of Iran, USA is likely to create conditions that may facilitate a compromise of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal no matter what assurances Musharraf and clan give on the supposedly flawless command and control system deployed by army.

A matter of great concern is the now sure infiltration of CIA (and it’s allied agencies) into ISI that is virtually crippling it’s work in NWFP and Balochistan in particular.

With Pak Army at the advance stage of decay where it’s top brass remains busy in happy golfing and duck shooting, a corrupt bureaucracy, intellectually and morally bankrupt politicians and hapless and miserable masses…there remains almost no room for hope.

Question is where will it all stop?

USA is a hog gone berserk who will eventually meet it’s end sometime not in a very distant future. How far it will succeed in ravaging the country after country in the Muslim world cannot be said for sure because it is not likely to stop after complete destruction of Iran or even Pakistan. Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia lie further up it’s path.

Muslim world has no choice in the face of this nuisance but fight back. To survive it must resist the ugly monster or perish. At the end of the day it’s the sons of soil, the poorest of poor, the oppressed and the beleaguered the likes of Taliban, that will take up the final fight and do the job,for it’s from the ashes and despair, a new flame of potent resistance will finally appear that will consume this menace called USA.

Lately we are flooded with friends. The Great of the Earth, past and present, come here to flatter us, to fawn on us, to grovel at our feet.

"God, save me from my friends, my enemies, I can deal with myself!" says an old prayer.

They disgust me.

Let's take for example the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem . Her pandering was free of any criticism and she reached new heights of obsequiousness in her speech to the Knesset. I was invited to attend. I relinquished the privilege.

I shall also pass the pleasure when I am invited to the session with the hyper-active Nicholas Sarkozy, who will try to break the flattery record of his German rival.  Before that we were visited by John McCain's mentor, the evangelical pastor John Hagee, the one who described the Catholic Church as a monster. Oozing sanctimonious flattery from every pore, he forbade us, in the name of (his) God, to give up even one inch of the Holy Land and commanded us to fight to the last drop of (our) blood.

However, not one of them has come close to George Bush. Approaching the end of the most disastrous presidency in the annals of the Republic, he really forced a lighted match into the hand of our government, encouraging it to ignite the barrel of gunpowder between our feet.

But the list of present-day leaders who participate in the pandering competition pales in comparison with the long parade of Has-Beens who lay siege to our gates.  A world-wide swarm of Has-Beens is flying from place to place like bees, all for one and one for all. This week they alighted in Jerusalem, on the invitation of Has-Been No. 1: Shimon Peres, a politician who in all the 84 years of his life has never won an election, and who was finally handed, out of sheer compassion, the largely meaningless title of President of Israel.

The common denominator of this group is that their prestige at home is close to nil, while their standing abroad is sky-high. Their mutual adoration compensates them for the lack of respect in their own countries. One of the senior members of this club is Tony Blair, who has been pushed from power in his own country but is not content to enjoy his pension and raise roses. As a consolation prize he has been granted the pleasure of playing around with our conflict. Every few weeks he convenes a press conference to present the good tidings of his phenomenal success in ameliorating the lot of the Palestinians, while the actual situation in the occupied territories goes from bad to worse. Our security establishment treats him like a bore who has to be thrown a crumb from time to time to keep him happy.

In the conference that took place this week there were also some good people, but the scene was stolen by the Has-Beens, from the retired war criminal Henry Kissinger to the dethroned peace hero Mikhail Gorbachev (whom I still consider a hero for preventing bloodshed during the collapse of the Soviet empire.) Pity to see him in this company.

All the participants in this orgy heaped mountains of fawning adulation on Israel . Not one of them had a word of criticism. No occupation. No settlements. No Gaza blockade. No daily killings. Just a wonderful, peace-loving state that the bad, bad terrorists want to throw into the sea.

Not one of the guests stood up to warn us against going on with the present policy. Not one of them stood up to proclaim the truth: that the continuation of this policy may lead our state to disaster. He who has friends like these has no need for enemies. A person who sees his friend playing Russian roulette and offers him bullets - is he a real friend? One who sees his friend standing on the brink of an abyss and tells him "go ahead" - is he a friend?

Among the fraternity of flatterers, the ones that attracted the most attention were the Jewish billionaires from America (who also paid for the extravaganza). Several of them were summoned to police headquarters immediately on arrival to give evidence on the affair that is rocking Israel now - the corruption investigation of Ehud Olmert. A smell of corruption has accompanied Olmert right from his beginnings in politics, 45 years ago. But this time, the smell is overpowering. The police has made it known that the American-Jewish billionaire Moshe Morris Talansky has been supplying him with cash-filled envelopes for years.

Where have we seen this before? Of course, in American movies and TV-series. Somebody opens a suitcase stuffed with bundles of banknotes. The donor invariably belongs to the Mafia, and the recipient is generally a corrupt politician. Can it be that Olmert has never seen these films - he of all people, who started his career with demagogic speeches denouncing "Organized Crime"?

But it is not Olmert who interests me in this affair so much as Talansky.  He belongs to a species of "Israel-loving" billionaires, most of them resident in the US, but also in Canada and Switzerland, Austria and Australia and other places. They are all Israeli patriots. They are all philanthropists. All contribute millions to Israeli politicians. And almost all of them support our extreme Right.

What makes them run? What induces these billionaires to do what they are doing?

A research in depth discovers that a great many of them made their money in dark corners. Some are gambling barons, casino-owners with all the inevitable connections with violence, crime and exploitation. One at least made his fortunes from brothels. Another was involved in a scandal involving old people's homes. Yet another is a scion of a family who made their money bootlegging during prohibition days. Some are arms merchants of the most despicable kind, selling weapons to the political gangs which sow death and destruction in Africa .

But money, as is well known, does not smell. Most of the multi-millionaires of this kind feel that they are not receiving the honor due to them. Their co-billionaires, high society people, treat them with disdain. A person reaching this position is not satisfied with money alone. He craves honor. Such honor can be bought in Israel , on the cheap.

Israel is selling honor of all kinds, no questions asked. For a suitable donation, even a gambling-hell owner will be received by the Prime Minister, dine with the President, put his name on a university building. (Once I wrote a light-hearted piece about the Third Temple , may God build it soon, Amen: the Rosenstein Holy of Holiest, the Rosenzweig altar, the Rosenberg cherubim, etc.)

Just after the Six-day War, during the great days of our generals, a new fashion spread among the best Jewish billionaires: to keep an Israeli general, in order to present him to friends as a pet. Some generals found no fault in this. It was owed to them, after all. One billionaire kept Ezer Weizman, the Air Force hero (who had to resign from the presidency when it came out). Two billionaires adopted Ariel Sharon and set him up in the largest farm in the country. Shimon Peres was no general (and not even a soldier), but at least three billionaires took him under their golden wings. No billionaire ever lost money by keeping an Israeli general, supporting an Israeli politician or making a generous donation to an Israeli cause. Ego is ego, patriotism is patriotism, but business is business. That's where the corruption set in. A person who donates millions to a politician in Israel (or, for that matter, the US, or Italy or any other place on the globe) knows full well that he will get it back with interest. When the politician becomes a minister, or Prime Minister, or President, the supporter has hit the jackpot.

In politics there is no innocent donation. One way or another, the donor will reap his reward - many times over. That's true in the US, that's true in Italy, that's true in Israel , too. If the donor declares to the police that he has no business interests in Israel , all it means is that they must dig deeper. The Olmert affair confirms anew what we have known for a long time: the fuel Israeli politics runs on is not just money, but money from abroad. To win primaries and campaign in elections, a candidate needs millions, and these almost always come from foreign donors. Foreign billionaires financed Olmert in the party primaries, and they financed him in the general elections, in which he was assured of becoming Prime Minister. After being elected, he started Lebanon War II, with all its death and destruction. It can be said: American Jewish billionaires killed the soldiers and civilians, Israeli and Lebanese, who lost their lives in the war.

In his speech to the Jerusalem conference, Shimon Peres lauded Israeli chutzpa. What we need is more chutzpa, he said. That sounded fetching and naughty, but was pure poppycock. I want to speak about another chutzpa. Not metaphorical, but real. Simple chutzpa. The chutzpa of billionaires in New York and Geneva and all the other places who interfere in our elections and determine the fate of our nation. The chutzpa of donating for a war in which not their sons, but ours, are killed. The chutzpa of sending billions for the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and especially in Jerusalem , which are put there for the express purpose of preventing peace and imposing on us a permanent war, a war that threatens our future - not theirs.

Let's be clear: I am not criticizing well-meaning donors, who feel a moral need to contribute to a hospital wing or a university building in Israel . I appreciate people who send a few hundred dollars to a political cause close to their heart. I object to foreign billionaires who aspire to dictate the direction of our state. Perhaps in other countries, too, politicians receive donations from foreign sources. But it is generally a marginal phenomenon. Here it is a major factor. That is one of the ill effects of the definition of Israel as a "Jewish State". Because of this, these donors do not look like what they are - impertinent foreigners who interfere in our lives and corrupt our state - but like "warmhearted Jews" who support a state that belongs to them as well.

Gideon Levy has recently written an article in which he begged them to "leave us alone". Being a less refined person than he, I shall say this in a ruder way: Go home and take your money with you. We are not for sale. Stop trying to manage our life (and death)!

There is nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot ….Scott Adams

Is Mr. Bush the idiot who attempts to be resourceful at the expense of world citizenry?

The Bush White House with its democratic war doctrine has threatened world peace and by using coercion and threat of war is bent on depriving Iran of civilian nuclear technology, even though Iran has not violated the NPT. Yet, in a move that defies all logic, Mr. Bush has offered Saudi Arabia nuclear technology. Given the Kingdom's past attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons and its record on human rights violations, either his sanity is questionable or his motives.

According to documents released from the British National Archives under the 30 year rule (dated December 12, 1973 and marked 'UK Eyes Alpha'), it was revealed that after the 1973 war, "[that] British intelligence believed the United States was ready to take military action" that is, invade, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, "to prevent further disruption to oil supplies" and "to secure control of their oil fields".  The jittery Saudis, cognizant of a possible future invasion, offered to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq's Osirak-reactor which was destructed by Israel in 1981. As late as 1985 Iraqi and Saudi military and nuclear experts were co-operating closely, the extent of which cooperation included sending Saudi nuclear scientists to Baghdad for months of training.

Between 1985 and 1990, up to the time Saddam invaded Kuwait , payments were made on condition that some of the bombs be transferred to the Saudi arsenal. Muhammad Khilewi, the second-in-command of the Saudi mission to the United Nations Khilewi brought with him more than 10,000 documents he obtained from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. The cache included transcripts of a secret desert meeting between Saudi and Iraqi military teams a year before the invasion of Kuwait . The transcripts depict the Saudis funding the nuclear program and handing over specialized equipment that Iraq could not have obtained elsewhere.

The defector's documents also showed that Riyadh had paid for Pakistan's bomb project and signed a pact that if Saudi Arabia were attacked with nuclear weapons, Pakistan would respond against the aggressor with its own nuclear arsenal. What Khilewi did not know was that the Fahd-Saddam nuclear project was also a closely held secret in Washington . According to a former high-ranking American diplomat, the CIA was fully apprised. The funding stopped only at the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1991. The fact that the CIA was aware of this, could explain why Khilewi was not granted federal protection when he abandoned his UN post and became an opponent in late June 1994.

Given that Saudi Arabia is a pariah state like Israel and attempted to obtain a nuclear bomb, much like Israel , perhaps the logic lies in their penchant for democracy that makes it acceptable for Bush to give them nuclear technology. Israel , a democracy for Jews only, violates the rights of Muslims and Christians, the latest such incident being orthodox Jews setting fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in an act of violence against Christian missionaries. Saudi Arabia has no tolerance for any religion other than Islam. In that women have no rights and political dissent is punishable in Saudi Arabia, should not stand in the way of this ally having a nuke; especially since their backdoor friendship with Israel is invaluable.

Aside from the glamorous Plaza hotel in N.Y., co-owned by Israel 's Elad Group and the Saudi-based Kingdom Holding Co., the neoconservative's propaganda machine certainly makes the Saudis a trustworthy partner – in some corners. In early September 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp. This made the Fifth richest man on the Forbes World's Richest People, the fourth largest voting shareholder in News Corp., the parent of Fox News. News Corp. is the world's leading newspaper publisher in English. Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal boasted in Dubai his ability to change the news content that viewers around the world see on television. No doubt with their nukes, they will be able to change a great deal more! The pertinent question is, what has been changed thus far for this White House to give nukes to an oppressive regime, known to have pursued nuclear bombs, and with a history of terrorism, be it training the Taliban or allegedly, or to have a tendency to send over terrorists, the 15 or the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and spread Wahhabism?

In 2004, after the illegal invasion of Iraq , a foundation was created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players were the Carlyle Group and the Albright Group. The purpose of the consortium was to secretly transfer some $57billion Iraqi debt owed to the government of Kuwait after the invasion. Under this deal, $2billion would be given to the consortium with half of it going to Carlyle. This was not an easy task as the time the world was willing to forgive Iraq's debt for reconstruction and the consortium had offered to use its 'influence' to 'maximize Kuwait 's debt collection (Nation). Carlyle's benefits were endless.

During the 2006 war, while Israel bombed Lebanon, Carlyle profited greatly – as did the Saudis, the U.S. , and of course, Israeli. The systematic destruction [of the Middle East 's only democracy] translated into significant opportunity for the Carlyle Group and with the 'crisis, they announced a $1.3 billion fund for investment in the region. They were not alone. The rush was on. The big investment banks -- Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers – all increased their presence in the region. Israel, the perpetrator as the benefactor, received an increase of USD 500 million additional in aid package from the U.S. in September of the same year (Ynet news).

And was it not wondrous indeed that John Bolton was able to hold off the United Nations Security Council for 33 days and nights before a cease-fire could finally be declared?

Perhaps for more importantly for the Bush administration and Israeli hardliners, the Saudi rulers are fulfilling their ultimate desire – the destruction if Islam. These fanatic Wahhabis are destroying the birth place of Mohammad and all traces of it, and replacing it with parking lots. The same oil-rich orthodoxy that pumped money into the Taliban as they prepared to destroy the Bamiyan buddhas in 2000 is now destroying Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, which date back to the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammad1,400 years ago. This is the highest cooperation possible from an ally, well deserving of nukes.

While the Saudis are being rewarded for their cooperation, they must remember that prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Shah was an ally who cooperated with the United States and Israel . His oppressive regime was given nuclear technology too. Today, in spite of its peaceful use, the civilian technology is being used to declare war on Iran . The Saudis who are fond of $5 million diamond covered Mercedes while the Palestinians are being incarcerated and starved, should be mindful their friendship will not be for long. After all, they are sitting on top of the world's biggest oil reserve; and Mr. Bush is not the idiot we think he is.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California , Los Angeles . She is a member of World Association of International Studies society, Stanford. Her research focus is U.S. foreign policy and the influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

BY: MUHAMMAD DAUD MIRAKI, Director Afghan DU & Recovery Fund
It is interesting that people describe different periods in history with existing adjectives in use in each respective period. To judge an era as either beneficial or harmful, people in different periods in time used their respective linguistic terms such as good, comfortable, bad and evil describing the ambiance created by a regime, ruler or empire. Rarely, have people resorted to events as descriptive indicators of their experience in a particular period in time; instead, they used linguistic means, namely, adjectives in describing some period in history as either good or bad. The reason for this is that each period in history has established terminology in use denoting the events, phenomena and social reality around them. For example, the Stalin era could easily be described by words such as evil, or Stalin and his crimes could easily be viewed as manifestation of evil. Although American academics of the Jewish faith have used 'holocaust' describing the mass murders of Stalin's era as a type of descriptive synonym equivalent to the Jewish experience under the Nazis. To my knowledge, no one has used one current event or social phenomenon in place of existing adjective as a type of antonym trying to describe another current event, until now. The reason that compels me to do so in this paper stems from the ineffectiveness of adjectives in describing our current state of affairs.

The boundless murders committed by the government of the United States under variously false pretexts make the government of the United States and its armed forces 'Killers without Borders'. The group that I chose to use as an antonym in describing the heinousness of the United States crimes worldwide is 'Doctors without Borders'. The reason I chose this group to serve as an antonym in this essay is rather straightforward. That is, 'Doctors without Borders' engage in benevolence with the sole purpose of saving lives irrespective of national borders, while, the US policy makers and armed forces serve as 'Killers without Borders' ready to murder innocent people without the slightest regard to basic human decency, national sovereignty or official borders.

The group 'Doctors without Borders' as its name connotes are doctors who do not value political and geographic borders in bringing life saving treatments and medicines to the needy whenever violence and disease have taken their toll on the poor and the disenfranchised. There are no material gains for these selfless doctors except the intangibles, feeling that they have done something good and decent amidst vast indecency in the world today. This group does not care about peoples' political affiliations, religious beliefs, national origin or ethnic descent. After all decency does not recognize the world in such clear terms as the evil portrayed and perpetrated by the United States of America. The government of the United States with the blessing of majority of its people 52% voting for Bush---have chosen the role of a gigantic mass killer aimed at satisfying its lust for material gains and imposing sheer pain on other people, who choose to be different.

Similar to 'Doctors without Borders', the United States does not recognize borders, however, contrary to the 'Doctors without Borders', the US does not aim at helping the poor and the needy, instead, it targets the weak militarily, depriving people of lives worldwide under the false banner of democracy and liberation.

Strategies of the Killers Without Borders

The Uniquely effective Use of the Word 'Democracy' : The significance of language as the crucial tool in human existence can not be looked at as a mere tool of communication. Language does not only serve as a tool of communication, but it also plays a crucial role as a major component of social structure. What I mean by social structure is any relatively stable pattern of social behavior. Hence, the function of language is much broader than is apparent at the outset. It is essential to realize that language is the tool of socialization and an effective tool of dissemination and diffusion of culture. Since culture does not remain still, the agents of socialization along with tools of socialization adjust accordingly. Agents of socialization are families, schools, peer groups, and media; they change with the passage of time as is evident for every adult in his/her middle age. What used to be 'cool' at their youth is no longer cool at adulthood. The use and meaning of some words are appropriate at certain point in one's life, but they lose their meaning from the intended with passage of years and decades. This is especially true for various descriptive jargons and phrases used by colonial powers describing their political and economic intent of subjugation of the conquered people in different parts of the world. For example, when Napoleon entered Egypt, he portrayed himself as someone who had come to civilize the Egyptian or for that matter any other people. Hence, Napoleon saw himself as a liberator than an occupier. The pertinent phrases of the early European powers were christianization and civilization. These words were appropriate from the perspective of the colonial powers in that time, after all, 'what was good for the Europeans had to be good for everybody else in the world'. Thus, the imposition of values and denigration of other cultures and religions are nothing unique to the current global hegemon, the United States, but rather inherited from its European predecessors.

With the advent of the British Empire, the above-mentioned phrases were still in use but were used selectively in different parts of the world. For example, in regions where Islam was the dominant religion the phrase christianization would be dropped and instead, they would use the phrase civilization and modernization, respectively. Slowly, civilization as the choice jargon would be almost entirely replaced by modernization and modernity and technology. Incidentally, every colonial power's aim was to obtain raw materials from the conquered regions, and then the resultant manufactured goods would be transported back to the conquered regions and sold to the populations there. What could be more profitable than this, especially, when raw natural resources are secured for free? It is worth mentioning that the British would also employ the corrupt elite in the conquered lands and use these influential locals as front in dealing with the population. Today, we see the same thing with a different form.

The United States copied some of the methods of the British; however, the US is much more efficient in portraying falsehood under the guise of phrases that are valued every where. As I mentioned that different deceptive phrases were used by colonial powers in different times and places, the phrases the US chose are democracy, liberty and freedom. These phrases are significant worldwide and transcend national borders and different regions. After all, these phrases envisage fundamental human necessities and god granted rights. However, these phrases would not find meaning unless presented in tangible manner to the conquered people and people worldwide. This is when local puppets from the region that have sold out and chose to exchange their dignity for some dirty dollars and authority, become tools of dissemination and diffusion of falsehood. This is similar to the British practice, but much more sophisticated. The sophistication of the mechanism the US uses is not really the invention of the United States but rather it is the consequence of globalization, which made travel from different parts of the world easy and facilitated opportunities for foreign nationals to receive education or seek employment. These foreign nationals became ideal instruments of manipulation. Although they chose to sell themselves out for prospects of power and money, they also serve as an effective smoke screen for the conquered region. For example, in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who was an asset of the US intelligence agencies, the CIA especially, served as a tool of the US hegemony; thus, he provided the tangibility needed behind the phrases democracy, liberty, and freedom.

How this works is rather effective. The effectiveness is two folds and has two groups of consumers, local and global.

1) The use of the word democracy manifests legitimacy in the eyes of subjugated local people and portrays a glimpse of hope for the future of local people. This is especially true when the subjected population has suffered either from induced civil wars, such as in Afghanistan orchestrated by the CIA after 1992 or from US installed and supported dictators, such as Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

2) The US attempts to use democracy as a vehicle of legitimacy to audience worldwide as if though people worldwide were ignorant had narrow sources of information as do Americans by being glued to their television sets.

The appointment of Karzai in Afghanistan and Alawi in Iraq are portrayed to the world as fruits of US foreign policy success. Now let's explore what these fruits of democracy have brought to their respective regions.

In Afghanistan, there are thousands more widows today than there were before the US invasion. There are more than 32,000 Afghan civilians - a conservative number - who have lost their lives to the US bombing. This number reflects only those victims who lost their lives from October 7, 2001 to the first three months of 2002. Moreover, there are thousands more orphans today than before the US invasion. These orphans are roaming Afghan streets and alleys, sleeping in cemeteries and bombed buildings, only to die from cold weather and disease. The other dreadful consequence for these orphans is the high rate of kidnapping. These orphans are kidnapped and then sold into slavery and prostitution or they serve as candidates for harvesting human organs to be sold to the highest bidder. Orphans are not the only ones that are kidnapped, but rather, due to the insecurity in different parts of the country, criminals target children of various backgrounds for these heinous purposes. Another tragedy that dwarfs all others is the heavy contamination of Afghanistan with uranium isotopes after the US used bunker-buster bombs and cannons using uranium projectiles. This incidentally is the "gift" that keeps on giving since uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, a perpetual death sentence has been imposed on the entire nation.

Words to Convey Action: Besides being a tool of communications, language also serves as the most effective tool in conveying action. After all had it not been for language how would one distinguish an evil deed from a good one? Incidentally, it brings fort the argument of chicken and egg, whether language existed first or actions and circumstances contributed to the evolution of language. This essay is certainly not the place to argue the anthropological and philosophical aspects of this issue. However, some individuals argue that action itself is a tool of communication. If this assertion were true, could one imagine what would one person do in order to show another person to distinguish a good deed from an evil one? Perhaps, the first person would have to kill another person to convey evil, while feed another to envisage what he/she means by good. But thankfully, we have been blessed with languages as effective tools of communications.

In addition to the primary function of language, language also serves as a vehicle for the conveyance of action through the use of common as well as technical words. These words could convey action either explicitly or implicitly. We use and interpret action from spoken words on daily basis. For example, if I said that I will drive to nearby town, I have explicitly expressed my intentions, however, if I said, the nearby town is a good place to work, the listeners could deduce that I might be looking for work in the nearby town. Moreover, one needs not to use long sentences to illustrate a particular action; instead, an effective use of key words is ample to establish an intended action. This is evident in the rhetoric of this administration trying to envisage righteousness. When GW Bush used the word tyranny in his speech, he wanted to imply to the public that his actions are those of a liberator not of an oppressor. Bush and his flock of cowards used the biblical words of good and evil in his first term, again trying to distinguish himself as a god-fearing man going after evil individuals.

The continuous use of these words has conditioned the American public in an effective manner. Since Americans are glued to their television sets and their entire worldview comes from television, they become truly the ideal mass sheep to be conditioned and used in ways that they would not acknowledge being part of.

Shameless Media Pundits: The most complicit in this global murder is the US corporate media and the shameless so-called journalists and experts. Sometimes one can not help but to ask how degrading a human being becomes in order to earn a living. Perhaps, earning a living is not the issue, but rather being part of a mass deception is a complex game of flawed semblance and semantics. But amidst this tragedy of murder and deception, one discovers how low a massive industry and individuals stoop for material gains. This fact becomes apparent when reporters from large media outlets and newspapers talk on shows or express themselves in writing.

Incidentally, I was watching the Charlie Rose Show when Thomas Freedman of the New York Times appeared on his show to discuss the Iraqi election. When he was talking about the United States occupation of Iraq, he would use his index fingers in the air to present occupation in a quotation mark, illustrating as if this "occupation" is not really "occupation" but rather liberation, yes liberation. Furthermore, the same cowards of the US and Western media would not dare to report facts, in fact, they are the vehicles whereupon the conditioning mechanism succeeds in this country. This, off course, does not exonerate the American consumers; after all, they have alternative media Internet, library, but more than anything else they have their brain to rely on.

When the CIA dog, Johnny Spann lost his life in the prison uprising in Northern Afghanistan, the media was talking about this character continuously. In fact, his widow was invited to the State of the Union. When confronted by reporters, the family of this CIA agent wished the other American, John Walker Lindh - 'the American Taliban' - to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. These people fail to realize what was their son the CIA agent - doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Perhaps, one of the readers would say that the reason US invaded Afghanistan was because Bin Laden attacked the US, and the Taliban gave him sanctuary. There is no need for me to debate that point here. Those that are curious should know that it is amply established that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were part of an inside job aimed at facilitating global hegemony. But the US media could care less that more than 1200 young men were slaughtered by the US B-52 bombing in the prison uprising and another 3500 lost their lives by being sealed into transport containers in northern Afghanistan. The containers were shot when the prisoners screamed for air and water, and their bodies were dumped in Dasht-e-Lailia desert in Northern Afghanistan.

Another example of media's cowardliness is the reporting of conflict in Palestine. When Israelis entered the Jenin Refugee Camp, where they killed civilians, destroyed their houses and deprived them of food and water, the coward media outlets were exhibiting sorrow for the loss of 13 Israeli soldiers, not the poor Palestinian refugees. This discussion went on until the Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi was shocked and questioned the decency of the television reporter and other American analysts on that show. This dirty game wherein Muslim men and women lose their lives in the hands of few mass murderers in Washington and London is a well calculated scheme concocted by morally corrupt academics at US academic institutions in order to justify what amounts to world domination.

Corruption As An Effective Tool: Moreover, another ironic tool that these Killers without Borders, use is that of corruption. It is a sociological fact that in order to control a family, one has to introduce corruption into the family and expose the family members to corrupt and degenerative behavior. Once that occurs, the family disintegrates by itself. Hence, corruption and collapse of moral values serve instruments of family disintegration. Family disintegration brings about what the 19th century French Sociologist Emile Durkheim would refer to as anomie. This is especially true in Kabul. The use of money and consumerism and opportunities for prostitution, drinking, gambling and other degenerate activities have brought about textbook sociological situations that have facilitated the disintegration of the basic institution of society, namely family.

This method is very effective among the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minority communities. The reason for the failure of the material enticement among the Pashtuns Afghans Afghanistan’s major ethnic group is the strong traditional family values and the rigid enforcement of those values among Pashtun households. For example, if a Pashtun woman compromised her dignity, the only outcome she would certainly encounter would be death because indignity is one among a handful things Pashtuns can not tolerate in their lives, and that is why, they are very protective of the female members of their family.

The classic mechanism the Americans and their coward allies use is the mechanism of luring females into training and job creation. Most of the time these women would end up in a US military base where they supposedly would get training, instead, they encounter funsex, drinking and partying. Tajiks are extremely susceptible to the aforementioned degenerate activities, but they also include Uzbek, Qazel Bash, and a few Hazara women.

There are 5 to 6 porn cable television channels free of charge available from 11 PM until 6 AM. The youngsters watch these movies and become immune to the whole notion of immorality associated with such behaviors. In addition, prostitute houses from India, Turkey, China and Thailand among others opened outlets in Kabul. These prostitute houses facilitate opportunities for young men who watch porn on television, to try to rob or engage in some other deviant behavior to come up with the needed money for attending these brothels.

The magnitude of deviation and corruption is so acute that no where in the world has the sex pill Viagra been so much in demand as in Kabul. Furthermore, condom manufacturers have sponsored radio station in order to increase its sale margin. The best democracy one could fuck, as one individual said.

Divide & Conquer - Another Tool: The instrument of divide and conquer is also employed in Afghanistan that is evident in the rhetoric of Karzai and his American handlers in naming some Taliban as moderate while others as extremists. It is also important to keep in mind that the Americans used the principle of divide and conquer effectively in using one ethnic group against another whereby they put in motion the electoral processes. In order to understand how these processes were put in motion some concise background is in order. Since Afghanistan is a multiethnic society, the fear of domination of one ethnic group over the other serves as an effective tool in luring ethnic groups to engage in actions that would impede the other ethnic groups from undermining their rights.

After the fall of the Soviet installed puppet regime in 1992, the subsequent infighting was fought along ethnic lines, although for strategic purposes alliances between opposing ethnic groups did take place. However, for the most part, the minority groups Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara dominated the post-1992 government in Kabul, and they resorted to targeting the Pashtun population in Kabul and in the north; thus, undermining them as a majority. Although Pashtuns also took to revenge and retaliatory measures during this era, which was followed by the emergence of Taliban as a reaction to the blatant violations committed by the minority groups. This period struck a severe blow to the Pashtuns' ego and their pride. The situation became worse when the Taliban regime collapsed. This was yet another blow to the Pashtuns' identity, especially that the Northern Alliance--composed of the same minority ethnic groups that dominated the post-1992 regime--played a key role in the US anti-Taliban campaign. The Bush administration took advantage of the dynamics at hand and played the majority against the minorities and vice versa. In light of the lengthy hostilities, Pashtuns had to 'sell their soul to the devil' and participate in the mock election and vote for the puppet Hamid Karzai even though he is America's stooge. The difficult decision Pashtuns in Afghanistan took was based on keeping the minorities at bay; otherwise, the minorities would have occupied the position of authority. This was indeed the proverbial double edge sword.

Therefore, inter-group conflicts along the mocked symbols of legitimacy, namely, election/democracy and the blunt use of force are some of the tricks of these 'Killers without Borders'.

However, the US officials are quite amateurish in their view of Afghanistan; they fail to comprehend Afghan history. For a foreign power to fail and bog down in Afghanistan, there need not be large armies of resistance, instead, effective groups of resistance break foreign enemies incrementally through attrition until they are too frail to get up.

The situation in Iraq is equally dim. According to a study by the British Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives subsequent to the US-British invasion of Iraq. In addition, thousands of widows and orphans are the byproduct of this cowardly invasion. Though the uranium contamination was prevalent after the first Gulf War, it has become much worse after this second invasion and occupation. Iraqi women are forced into prostitution either by hunger and homelessness brought on by the US. Criminal elements roam around the country eager to make money even if they sell women's dignity. Oh, I almost forgot, this should not matter to the US since this is considered freedom for women and women rights. Another uncharacteristic situation in Iraq has been the widespread sale and use of illicit drugs. There were never any trade or consumption of illicit drugs in Iraq. On the same token, opium and heroin were wiped out by religious decree under the Taliban regime, but now, drug production in Afghanistan has gone up exponentially alarming the United Nations to the extent to forecast a dim future for Afghanistan since it had edged upon becoming a narco-state. The drugs produced in Afghanistan, are transported by the US intelligence and military agencies to different parts of the world including Iraq, where a drugs market has emerged that serves not only Iraqi addicts but also transported to the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich nations.

Why Killers Without Borders?  The reason I chose to call this article 'Killers without Borders' stems from the methods of killings. These methods are as follows:

1. The invasion of another sovereign nation is the blatant violation of international law, which the US government has no regards for. Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the US has become the sole superpower. This status entails military, economic and consequently political weights. As usual, the US abuses its economic and military power for political gains in the United Nations as it was apparent in the wake of the Iraq war. At that time, the Bush administration was blatantly intimidating and bribing smaller nations and fail to even acknowledge the existence of its European allies. In the European arena, Bush's poodle, Tony Blair did the necessary barking. It is important to keep in mind that it is no surprise that the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court; had it been a signatory to the court, the US government would have been one of the most visible defendants tried for war crimes.

2. The second aspect is dependent upon the first one for the most part. Due to the economic and military might of the United States, other nations are eager to accommodate their airspace for the US fighter jets and rockets. Some nation-states such as Pakistan--which is nothing but an overused and undervalued prostitute pleasing the US government--would not even require the US armed forces to ask for permission. Therefore, the US jet fighters and tomahawk missiles crisscross national borders as if they did not exist. After all, 'everyone' wants to be on the good side of the global killer.

3. In this process to please the US's imperialist ventures, smaller nations target their own citizens suspected to be against the American aggression. This was especially evident in the case of Pakistan. As I mentioned, Pakistan as a country and its establishment constitute the omnipresent prostitute to please the US government. Thus, it was no surprise when a US State Department official stated publicly that a Pakistani would sell his mother for a few dollars.

4. The fourth characteristic of the 'Killers without Borders' is the facilitation of opportunities for other corrupt regimes to oppress domestic opposition and murder many under the rubric of some concocted legitimacy. For example, in light of the so-called 'war on terror', regimes worldwide have found easy ways to get rid of individuals deemed political troublemakers. The government of Uzbekistan, China, Russia and Algiers have used the label of the war on terror, to suppress and prosecute oppositions.

5. The fifth aspect of the 'Killers without Borders' is the use of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Specifically, the use of uranium munitions--bunker-buster bombs, canon rounds and projectiles--not only contaminate the land where they are used but also contaminate neighboring countries. Since uranium alloy used in these weapons pulverizes upon impact, it becomes aerosol. This way the dust becomes susceptible to wind pattern and water flow. Since wind and water are not confined to a geographic area bound by political borders, people across borders become ill and die.

6. The US's indiscriminate bombings force people to abandon their homelands and become refugees in a neighboring countries. In the process of displacement, refugees die on all sides of borders, as it was evident in the case of Afghanistan when the US started bombing. Furthermore, for the thousands forced to flee their homes, survival becomes the only issue. Hence, to survive, people resort to disparate actions, which sometimes result in the loss of lives in the host country. So, death is brought upon the victim population in different forms.

Killers share certain universal characteristics--by no means exhaustive--that include disregard for the victim, considering the victim less human, rationalizing their crimes among many other characteristics. A killer could have many motives for perpetrating his/her inhumane and gruesome action. The motives could initially not be murder but rather another degenerate undertaking such as robbery, sexual attack, or simply an argument had gone sour and the individual enraged and reacted in an miscalculated manner, killing the other individual. When there are actual motives for murder, they could range from revenge to utter hatred of the targeted person. In some instances, an individual might be a psychotic, and some schizophrenic urges might have resulted in heinous actions. The above-mentioned scenarios would happen in a defined geographic location, wherein the offender(s) might reside. The crime committed by individuals in their own respective enclaves, confine them within the bounds of legal infrastructure of that enclave. When murder is committed in a defined geographic location, the offender could be held accountable for committing murder under defined local laws. The guilt of the person is defined by the action of murder alone. In the case of the United States, the mechanism of murder is obviously different but is also heinous, complex and boundless, and is not subject to any legal imperatives since it does not value any rule of law including its own.

Hence, the US forces and supporters as 'Killers without Borders' are different from common murderers in certain specific ways. It is worth mentioning that this list is no means exhaustive.

First, the perpetration of murder by the United States is indiscriminate, brutal, and recognizes no geographic boundaries. For example, the US mercenary murderers commit their murders by targeting large number of people in a locality, followed by targeting those civilian rescuers that would attempt to help the victims of the first wave of attacks.

This practice was witnessed and reported by the UN officials and condemned when the US armed forces targeted Afghan civilians.

During the month of December, 2001, another liberation attempt was carried out by the 'brave' men of the US armed forces when they killed 52 civilians, mostly women and children in the village of Niazi Qala in Paktia province. The British newspaper, The Time published the following account of the tragedy:

"non-combatant women and children were chased and killed by U.S. helicopters during an attack on an Afghan village that left 52 dead."

According to the newspaper, in the initial strike in this village 10 women and 25 children were reported killed but later, a UN spokesperson, Stephanie Bunker said:

"After the women and children were killed in the village, a second group of civilians fled the attack and were gunned down by U.S. helicopters. All fifteen of the fleeing villagers were killed. A third group of civilians, who were trying to rescue survivors, was also killed by the U.S. military according to Ms. Bunker."

Similarly, in Jalal Abad, when the US jets bombed a mosque where people were praying, many civilians were killed at the entrance of the mosque. The survivors ran to help the wounded, however, it was not long before they were also targeted and became added numbers of collateral damage. The US forces use this practice of mass murder also in Iraq.

Second, the murders are not perpetrated in a defined time and space, but rather the use of the weapons in the murders leaves a legacy of perpetual death--killing for generations to come. This aspect of the crime of these 'Killers without Borders' is the most dreadful and heinous of all. The US armed forces rely heavily on uranium munitions. They use bunker buster bombs made of uranium alloy dropped by fighters jets and bombers, and uranium projectiles fired from the A-10 warthogs and AC-130 gunships. The heinous nature of murder through these weapons of mass destruction becomes evident in all sphere of the targeted population. In Afghanistan, the US use of bunker buster bombs has made the mountainous regions of east, southeast and southwestern parts of the country uninhabitable.

Third, the murders are committed in a very uneven plain field, wherein the victim is absolutely devoid of any means of self defense, while the US killers do not look at the nameless faces of their victims because these murderers are too much of cowards to fight face to face. Instead, they kill from 35,000 feet using B-52s.

Fourth, despite the heinousness of their crimes, the US killers are shameless to even admit their wrongdoing; on the contrary, they label their murders with descriptive terms such as liberation, freedom and democracy. In fact, after murdering thousands of innocent people, the United States wants and expects the targeted nation to acknowledge gratitude for bringing them democracy. This dirty public relation job is left to the puppets they put in place such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Allawi in Iraq.

Fifth, the US killers - Killers without Borders - unlike individual murderers in society refer to their victims as objects, namely collateral damage. Contrary to individual murderers when caught by law enforcement apologize in the sentencing phase, the US murderous government does not show any remorse. Instead, it usually releases statements barely touching the issue. For example, a White House spokesperson would say, "the United States regrets any loss of innocent life." Incidentally, when the surviving family members approach US officials asking for compensation, they are literally pushed away. For example, when widows and children approached the US embassy in Kabul expecting to be compensated for the loss of their homes---not family members---the US military personnel pushed them away.

Sixth, in countries such as Afghanistan where dignity dictates daily life, a murderer intent on taking revenge would not go after some body,s female family members because it is considered an indignity. The US mercenary murderers, who kill for money, and do not know anything about dignity, had taken Iraqi women hostage in order to force male family members to surrender. For example, in Fallujah, Iraq, the US coward armed forces went to arrest a young man who led local insurgents, however, he was not home. This prompted the US armed forces to drag the Iraqi man's sister, a young woman named Fatimah. The reason for Fatimah's arrest was to force her brother to put down arms and surrender. In the process, Fatimah along with other women in Abu Ghraib prison was raped many times. Until she wrote a letter and secretly passed it to the resistance through a third party. In that letter, she said the following:

"My brother Mujahideen in the path of God! What can I say to you? I say to you: our wombs have been filled with the children of fornication by those sons of apes and pigs who raped us. Or I could tell you that they have defaced our bodies, spit in our faces, and tore up the little copies of the Qur'an that hung around our necks? God is greatest! Can you not comprehend our situation? Is it true that you do not know what is happening to us? We are your sisters. God will be calling you to account about this tomorrow."

She continued,

"By God, we have not passed one night since we have been in prison without one of the apes and pigs jumping down upon us to rip our bodies apart with his overweening lust. And we are the ones who had guarded our virginity out of fear of God. Fear God! Kill us along with them! Destroy us along with them! Don't leave us here to let them get pleasure from raping us! It will be an act to ennoble the Throne of Almighty God. Fear God regarding us! Leave their tanks and aircraft outside. Come at us here in the prison of Abu Ghurayb."

The poor soul concludes with the following plea:

"I am your sister in God (Fatimah). They raped me on one day more than nine times. Can you comprehend? Imagine one of your sisters being raped. Why can't you all imagine it, as I am your sister. With me are 13 girls, all unmarried. All have been raped before the eyes and ears of everyone.

They won't let us pray. They took our clothes and won't let us get dressed. As I write this letter one of the girls has committed suicide. She was savagely raped. A soldier hit her on her chest and thigh after raping her. He subjected her to unbelievable torture. She beat her head against the wall of the cell until she died, for she couldn't take any more, even though suicide is forbidden in Islam. But I excuse that girl. I have hope that God will forgive her, because He is the Most Merciful of all.

Brothers, I tell you again, fear God! Kill us with them so that we might be at peace. Help! Help! Help! WaMu'tasimah!"

As a result of the emotional letter from Fatimah, her brother targeted the Abu Graib prison with rockets killing 68 American soldiers including Fatimah and other prisoners. At last, Fatimah's wish of welcoming death over the indignity that was brought upon her and other females by these Killers without Borders, the Americans.

In light of the crimes of these killers and the scope of their exploitation worldwide, the question to ask is what could be done. In the case of common murderers, law enforcement officials and police look for culprits and eventually bring them to face the consequences of their crimes. In this case, who is going to bring the US armed mercenary cowards to justice, and who is going to bring the people of this country at the least the 52% of them to justice and hold them accountable. The answer is simple, no one can because the victim nations do not have a comparable military force to take revenge; the United Nations-- and its coward Secretary General is instrument of the US's legitimacy. In fact, the misuse of international law and the United Nations as a rubber stamp are some of the ways the United States want to fool the world. Furthermore, the US refuses to become a signatory to the Court in Hague because the US government realizes that its soldiers and officials would be summoned to face their victims.

Thus, the alternative is to resort to improvisation, a poor man's weapon since the dawn of time. This improvisation is referred to as terrorism and the US and her allies saw to it to use the UN equally effective to tackle the issue of "terrorism."

Again, my question is what is the alternative? Let, me guess, write letters of complain, Right!! No, the only way a beast could be stopped in its tracks to force it to stop after all a beast does not listen to reason, if it cared about reason, would it commit such heinous crimes? Off course, not. Professor Ward Churchill provided the answer to this question, when he said that "the US needs more 911s."

Well, I have news to the United States and her government, you have dug a nasty deep hole for other people simply for being different, but be assured that you will end up in that hole and remain there until disintegrate. No one needs to do that; you as country are doing it to yourself. Everyone in the world is a spectator standing on the sideline, watching the last crawl of the United States until it crumbles.

Now let me touch upon the noble and selfless deeds of the Doctors without Borders and see how it stands against the actions of the Killers without Borders, the answer is simple. The actions of Doctors without Borders signify the best of humanity whereas those of the Killers without Borders are the lowest humanity could stoop to.

The world must stop standing idle while the people of Gaza are treated with such cruelty

BY: JIMMY CARTER

The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished.  This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.

Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza . Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel , plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.

Regardless of one's choice in the partisan struggle between Fatah and Hamas within occupied Palestine, we must remember that economic sanctions and restrictions on the supply of water, food, electricity and fuel are causing extreme hardship among the innocent people in Gaza , about one million of whom are refugees.

Israeli bombs and missiles periodically strike the area, causing high casualties among both militants and innocent women and children. Prior to the highly publicised killing of a woman and her four children last week, this pattern had been illustrated by a report from B'Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organisation, which stated that 106 Palestinians were killed between February 27 and March 3. Fifty-four of them were civilians, and 25 were under 18 years of age.

On a recent trip through the Middle East , I attempted to gain a better understanding of the crisis. One of my visits was to Sderot, a community of about 20,000 in southern Israel that is frequently struck by rockets fired from nearby Gaza . I condemned these attacks as abominable acts of terrorism, since most of the 13 victims during the past seven years have been non-combatants. Subsequently, I met with leaders of Hamas - a delegation from Gaza and the top officials in Damascus . I made the same condemnation to them, and urged that they declare a unilateral ceasefire or orchestrate with Israel a mutual agreement to terminate all military action in and around Gaza for an extended period.

They responded that such action by them in the past had not been reciprocated, and they reminded me that Hamas had previously insisted on a ceasefire throughout Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel had refused. Hamas then made a public proposal of a mutual ceasefire restricted to Gaza , which the Israelis also rejected.

There are fervent arguments heard on both sides concerning blame for a lack of peace in the Holy Land . Israel has occupied and colonised the Palestinian West Bank, which is approximately a quarter the size of the nation of Israel as recognised by the international community. Some Israeli religious factions claim a right to the land on both sides of the Jordan river , others that their 205 settlements of some 500,000 people are necessary for "security".

All Arab nations have agreed to recognise Israel fully if it will comply with key United Nations resolutions. Hamas has agreed to accept any negotiated peace settlement between the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel 's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, provided it is approved in a referendum of the Palestinian people.

This holds promise of progress, but despite the brief fanfare and positive statements at the peace conference last November in Annapolis , the process has gone backwards. Nine thousand new Israeli housing units have been announced in Palestine; the number of roadblocks within the West Bank has increased; and the stranglehold on Gaza has been tightened.

It is one thing for other leaders to defer to the US in the crucial peace negotiations, but the world must not stand idle while innocent people are treated cruelly. It is time for strong voices in Europe, the US, Israel and elsewhere to speak out and condemn the human rights tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people.

...Jimmy Carter is a former president of United States

Yet another brilliant article by Dr Mazari, highlighting how a compromise of Pakistan's sovereignity is being very brazenly facilitated by incompetent Pakistan governmet. How the new prime minister and his cabinet views these advancements and what is their aproach towards checking this dangerous trend is yet to be seen. Indicators are not very encouraging, though. It is obvious that these dwarfs are only busy killing their time in tackling the matters of a lesser importance and are incapable of objectively assessing the present threat to Pakistan's very existence.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
While the nation continues to watch the "back and forth" drama over the restoration of the judges issue, increasingly aware of where it will all end; and while the poor look beyond the judicial issue to the basics of survival in the face of rising costs of staple food and utilities; scant attention is being paid to the rapid threats to the country's sovereignty that are emerging from different quarters that are linked together in an overarching strategic partnership – that is India and the US with the UK an avid supporter. If one only examines events that took place April 23 to April 29 and connects them up, it becomes clear that either by default or by design Pakistan is in danger of losing its sovereignty.

To begin with, take the incident of April 23 when NATO forces (actually US forces) along with some Afghan soldiers attacked FC posts in Bajaur Agency. What is intriguing is the way in which this direct assault on the country's sovereignty was explained away. First we were told that it was a misunderstanding. Then some of us were told that in fact this action was in response to firing from across our side of the international Pakistan-Afghan border.

However, on exploring further it transpires that the firing from our side took place a day earlier so the violence from the US troops was not an immediate response to the firing -- although it is difficult in any case to actually assess the exact spot of the initial firing given the nature of the border. Instead, this was a pre-planned operation, conducted a day later, targeting our FC posts at a time when there were a few FC personnel on duty, and involved 600 US troops along with Afghan soldiers as well as helicopter gunships and tanks! Also, the attack continued for a fair length of time so that the FC was able to call in reinforcements -- again not simply an immediate response to fire from militants! Instead, it seems the US military deliberately targeted our paramilitary forces – to teach them some sort of "lesson".

Interestingly, this attack came a few days after reports that US commanders were seeking to widen their attacks inside Pakistan . Worse still, some of our border posts were occupied by the US-Afghan combine -- but we kept quiet and there was no contemplated retaliation. Why?

Now we hear that the peace talks with our tribal people are breaking down. Clearly a mischievous hand can be discerned, especially when one sees the bizarre story of a handbill being circulated in Peshawar inviting people to join the Taliban. The Taliban have denied the authenticity and, on this count, they are probably right because the language being used -- for instance the words "Janat ka direct ticket" -- is more in line with western advertising ruses than Taliban language! Also, the mobile number given in English makes little sense as does the fact that the handbill is in Urdu rather than in Pushto. It would appear the timing is directly an effort to sabotage the ANP's political strategy of dealing with the tribal issue and it does not take too much intelligence to understand who is indulging in such dirty tricks.

To add to efforts at our demoralisation, last week also saw the French Prime Minister declare that Pakistan will "fall" if France leaves Afghanistan ! Honestly, is this what we are being reduced to? Nor is this all. British Foreign Secretary, Milliband, who seems to find no other place to give him the sort of feel-good sense that Islamabad does, has decided to explain to the world on our behalf that "Pakistanis voted for democracy nor Talibanisation"! So are we supposed to feel more confident about ourselves after this statement?

But the British must be feeling pleased with us these days because in another clipping of our sovereignty we have now allowed the British to deploy an airline liaison officer at Islamabad airport -- in other words, the state of Pakistan has delegated its powers to Britain to block the departure of passengers from Islamabad to the UK! Is this a reciprocal renunciation of a chip of our independence? Are we going to be allowed to have similar privileges at British airports to block the travel to Pakistan of undesirables from Britain -- especially "sleeper" terrorists? Of course not! This also happened in the seven-day time period being discussed here, which seems to have been particularly good for those seeking to undermine our sovereignty as a nation.

For it was also in this period that we had former Indian National Security Adviser, Mishra, suggesting that India become part of the US-EU or NATO combine to fight terrorism in Pakistan ! This is like Pakistan suggesting we help India fight terrorism in its northeastern provinces or Hindu extremism in Gujarat ! But we do know that the US is seeking to bring India militarily into Afghanistan and one really wonders when we will react strongly to these efforts -- when it is already too late? Incidentally, the US continues to adopt its arrogantly imperial approach towards Pakistan and now we hear that despite paying the market price for the F-16s, we are not going to get the cutting edge technology India will get with its F-16s. Clearly the F-16 saga will not alter, but let us hope we are not reduced to wheat and soya beans again!

Of course, we are still going the extra mile, unilaterally, to support India on all fronts. We have now agreed in principle that India can export wheat to Afghanistan through Wagah – opening up the long sought after land route by India . Hopefully, this decision will include certain safeguards like ensuring that the transportation from Wagah to the Afghan border is done by Pakistani transporters and that India pays a transport levy. Since the decision has been taken on principle, one must wait to see how it is operationalised, but to allow India physical access through Pakistan 's sensitive areas surely cannot be contemplated. Will India allow us to transport foodstuff to Nepal through the land route from across India ?

At least some political leaders are showing a commitment to reciprocity with Mr Nawaz Sharif demanding a linkage between the Sarabjit case and the case of Pakistani prisoners languishing in Indian jails. No one seems to have shown any sensitivity to this issue at all. Even more critical, commutation of Sarabjit's death sentence to life imprisonment should first be linked to an overall decision by the state to commute all death sentences and, in fact, move to end the death penalty which does not deter most murders and only penalises the poor -- many of whom are wrongly condemned for lack of a good defence. After all, if an Indian who killed innocent Pakistanis is to live why not the poor Pakistanis rotting on death row? Is a foreign life worth more than a Pakistani life for us?

Imagine if so much of our sovereignty was chipped away in a mere seven days, how much of it has already been lost after our embrace of the US-led "global war on terror" post-9/11! Has it all been willingly done?

BY: PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The Bush Regime has quagmired America into a sixth year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. The cost of these wars of aggression is horrendous. Official US combat casualties stand at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 US troops have been wounded in Iraq. Experts have argued that these numbers are understatements. Regardless, these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg.

On April 17, 2008, AP News reported that a new study released by the RAND Corporation concludes that “some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries.”

On April 23, 2008, Online Journal reported that an internal email from Gen. Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans Administration, to Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, confirms a McClatchy Newspaper report that 126 veterans per week commit suicide. To the extent that the suicides are attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be added to the reported combat fatalities each month.

Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as many as 1.2 million dead Iraqis, almost entirely civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq.

Afghan casualties are unknown.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered unconscionable civilian deaths and damage to housing, infrastructure and environment. Iraq is afflicted with depleted uranium and open sewers.

Then there are the economic costs to the US. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost value against other currencies, declining dramatically even against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars of aggression, one US dollar was worth 45 baht. Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.

The US cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month, US Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities of the US government total 53 trillion dollars. The US government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush Regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to bankrupt the country and dethrone the dollar as the world reserve currency.

The moral costs are perhaps the highest. All of the deaths, injuries, and economic costs to the US and its victims are due entirely to lies told by the president and vice president of the US, by the secretary of defense, the national security advisor, the secretary of state, and, of course, by the media, including the “liberal” New York Times. All of these lies were uttered in behalf of an undeclared agenda. “Our” government has still not told “we the people” the real reasons “our” government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Instead, the American sheeple have accepted a succession of transparent lies: weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections and complicity in the 9/11 attack, overthrowing a dictator and “bringing democracy” to Iraqis.

The great moral American people would rather believe government lies than to acknowledge the government’s crimes and to hold the government accountable.

There are many effective ways in which a moral people could protest. Consider investors, for example. Clearly Halliburton and military suppliers are cleaning up. Investors flock to the stocks in order to participate in the rise in value from booming profits. But what would a moral people do? Wouldn’t they boycott the stocks of the companies that are profiting from the Bush Regime’s war crimes?

If the US invaded Iraq for any of the succession of reasons the Bush Regime has given, why would the US have spent $750 million on a fortress “embassy” with anti-missile systems and its own electricity and water systems spread over 104 acres? No one has ever seen or heard of such an embassy before. Clearly, this “embassy” is constructed as the headquarters of an occupying colonial ruler.

The fact is that Bush invaded Iraq with the intent of turning Iraq into an American colony. The so-called government of al-Maliki is not a government. Maliki is the well-paid front man for US colonial rule. Maliki’s government does not exist outside the protected Green Zone, the headquarters of the American occupation.

If colonial rule were not the intent, the US would not be going out of its way to force al Sadr’s 60,000 man militia into a fight. Sadr is a Shi’ite who is a real Iraqi leader, perhaps the only Iraqi who could end the sectarian conflict and restore some unity to Iraq. As such he is regarded by the Bush Regime as a danger to the American puppet Maliki. Unless the US is able to purchase or rig the upcoming Iraqi election, Sadr is likely to emerge as the dominant figure. This would be a highly unfavorable development for the Bush Regime’s hopes of establishing its colonial rule behind the facade of a Maliki fake democracy. Rather than work with Sadr in order to extract themselves from a quagmire, the Americans will be doing everything possible to assassinate Sadr.

Why does the Bush Regime want to rule Iraq? Some speculate that it is a matter of “peak oil.” Oil supplies are said to be declining even as demand for oil multiplies from developing countries such as China. According to this argument, the US decided to seize Iraq to insure its own oil supply.

This explanation is problematic. Most US oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The best way for the US to insure its oil supplies would be to protect the dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Moreover, $3-5 trillion would have purchased a tremendous amount of oil. Prior to the US invasions, the US oil import bill was running less than $100 billion per year. Even in 2006 total US imports from OPEC countries was $145 billion, and the US trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106 billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for US oil imports for 30 years; 5 trillion dollars could pay the US oil bill for a half century had the Bush Regime preserved a sound dollar.

The more likely explanation for the US invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush Regime’s commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran from giving support to the Palestinians and Lebanese. The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush’s “war on terror” is a hoax that serves to cover US intervention in the Middle East in behalf of “greater Israel.”