'Nato supply convoys travelling through Pakistan to Afghanistan have regularly come under attack in the past, but following Pakistan's decision to block their route through the Khyber Pass, they now face an even bigger security threat. Hundreds of tankers and trucks have been left stranded on highways and depots across Pakistan, with little or no security. Taliban militants have regularly been targeting the convoys, even when they are heavily protected. But many believe it is not just the militants who pose a security threat to the convoys. The owners of oil tankers being used to supply fuel to Nato in Afghanistan say some of the attacks on their convoys are suspicious. They say there is evidence to suggest that bombs have been planted in many of vehicles by the “Nato contractors” – individuals or companies who have been contracted by Nato to supply fuel and goods to forces in Afghanistan.'
With allegation-phrases like “many believe”, “they say”, without lending any forensic or critical factual analysis as to why 'Nato contractors' who work directly for the Pentagon and NATO, might be doing such a thing, the belated disclosure feeds rumors that are already ripe among the 'untermensch' victims that there is something terribly wrong with this 'War on Terror' whose principal victims since its inception continue to be innocent civilians. Why would the occupation forces want to increase the discontent of the already beleaguered people by such rumor-mongering reportage, and by the systematic controlled leaks that we see cropping up now and then which convey, from its own official records, American barbarianism upon Muslim civilians? Or more aptly framed in Michael Hayden's vernacular, what is the purpose of this “tickling” reportage?
Our newsmedia, both mainstream print and television, and almost all of alternate media largely playing controlled dissent worldwide, are unwilling to inform the public of the military significance of “insurgency” and “counter-insurgency”. The simpleton mind of the public, these lords of public relations must feel in sympathy with the Report from Iron Mountain, remains “unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility” and cannot therefore appreciate the value of the “considerable political sophistication” that goes into the deep calculus of hegemony as “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”
Poorly read of history as the commoners of course are, including the most educated ones among them with 'scholar' stamped upon their forehead, and weaned on the immediate gratification of the here and the now by having pursued their 'American Dreams' in deep slumber all of their lives, the plebes obviously naturally fail to recognize the distemper of hegemony when it is inchoate and kept brewing under covers.
They cannot believe that “Peace and its duration, like war, is determined by natural laws that in their fundamental principles do not vary nor are found wanting”. And when this law of hegemony is steamrolled into practice in the form of the lifetime of 'War on Terror', the only thing visible to the public is the death and mayhem with the respected narrators keeping score. But not the military precision with which red-teaming/blue-teaming insurgency and counter-insurgency are employed to perpetually engage the world in the controlled chaos of World War IV.
The factual political science reason for engaging in such permanent warfare was serendipitously discovered in the 1908-09 minute books of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in 1953-54 by the indefatigable Congressional Investigator Norman Dodd, for the Reece Committee investigating the suspected subversion by tax-exempt foundations. Norman Dodd rehearsed from memory the occurrence of the following question from the minute books:
'We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”'
That same principal reason guides the presence of American soldiers all across the “Global zone of percolating violence”, as Zbigniew Brzezinski characterized these locations in 1996, where we now find Western troops engaging in the 'War on Terror'.
So why should NATO set fire to their own convoys and blame it on the insurgents? Insurgency vs. Counter-Insurgency was forensically examined in my article last year “The Decapitation of Pakistan by its own Military!” and is reproduced below in its entirety. The reader is invited to spend some time reviewing Operation Gladio cited in its footnote. For convenience, watch Operation Gladio part1 part2 part3.
VALIDATION UPDATE July 21, 2011: 'US aid may be flowing to Afghan insurgents'
Zahir's note: The United States government is itself admitting that American funds are being funneled to the insurgents, once the disingenuousness of doublespeak statements like these are peeled away. Also see John Perkins on how corruption is manufactured among the beggar nations by the donor agencies, slyly aided and abetted, and encouraged by deliberately turning a blind eye knowing full well where the funds are going. The process of covertly as well as overtly inducing corruption to co-opt, and then claiming there is corruption during mechanical “audits”, is an art well known to those who understand imperial statecraft and its multifaceted notions of cover stories and “plausible deniability” (see Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory for the presidential directive NSC 10/2 if unfamiliar with the concept of “plausible deniability”):
'... "US agencies have taken steps to strengthen their oversight of US funds, but the United States still has limited visibility over how these funds flow through the Afghan economy, leaving these funds vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents," said the audit.
The findings come amid growing frustration in Washington over the corruption-plagued Afghan government and steadily declining public support for the nearly 10-year-old war.
The audit reviewed oversight of US aid converted to cash, including electronic payments to contractors, and assessed American efforts to bolster the Kabul government's regulation of commercial banks and informal hawala financial networks.
The report said that "given the amount of US cash that flows through the Afghan economy, it is imperative that the US government have robust measures in place to ensure that these funds are not used for fraud or diverted to insurgent networks.
"However, we found that agencies have not instituted sufficient controls over US funds," it said. ... Since 2002, the United States has spent more than $70 billion on security and development assistance in Afghanistan.'
VALIDATION UPDATE March 25, 2011: '331 US officials may leave Pak under secret deal over Davis'
Zahir's note: The government of Pakistan is even admitting that insurgency is fabricated (see Letter: Understanding the 'arc of crisis' with minimal work By Zahir Ebrahim which records my own defeat: “Just don't ask me how to get rid of our fifth columnists – that's where I stand defeated.”)
'Islamabad: A total of 331 US officials in Pakistan, most of them suspected of engaging in espionage under diplomatic cover, have been "identified to leave the country" under a secret deal between the two sides for release of American national Raymond Davis, a media report said on Thursday. ... An official said that most of the suspected US officials were "involved in suspicious activities, including photographing and filming of sensitive installations like airbases (Warsak, near Peshawar and Multan), defence bunkers along the Pakistan-India border near Lahore, recruiting persons supporting their activities and launching local people for suspicious activities by offering lucrative benefits".'
September 28, 2009 | Revised November 02, 2009
© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice
[PHBF Report] Dateline Sept. 28 to Nov. 02, 2009, California, United States
Continue Reading at: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/09/decapitation-of-pakistan.html
Last updated 07/21/2011 20:00:34 1442
Insurgency vs. Counter-Insurgency Abridged Version By Zahir Ebrahim