noworldsystem.com


U.S. pays $57,077 a minute in Afghanistan

U.S. pays $57,077 a minute in Afghanistan

Asia Times
December 19, 2009

The sum of US$57,077.60. That’s what the United States is paying per minute. Keep that in mind – just for a minute or so.

After all, the surge is already on. By the end of December, the first 1,500 of 30,000 additional US troops will have landed in Afghanistan, a nation roughly the size of Texas, ranked by the United Nations as second-worst in the world in terms of human development.

Women and men from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, will be among the first to head out. It takes an estimated $1 million to send each of them surging into Afghanistan for one year. So a 30,000-person surge will be at least $30 billion, which brings us to that $57,077.60. That’s how much it will cost the US taxpayer, for one minute of that surge.

By the way, add up the yearly salary of one US Marine Corps soldier from Camp Lejeune with four years of service, throw in his or her housing allowance, additional pay for dependents, and bonus pay for hazardous duty, imminent danger, and family separation, and you’ll still be many thousands of dollars short of that single minute’s sum.

Read Full Article Here

 

DOD: Obama’s Afghan Surge Will Rely Heavily On Private Contractors

TPM Muckraker
December 15, 2009

Private contractors will make up at least half of the total military workforce in Afghanistan going forward, according to Defense Department officials cited in a new congressional study.

As President Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan unfolds, the number of contractors will likely jump by between 16,000 and 56,000, adding up to a total of 120,000-160,000, according to an updated study from the Congressional Research Service.

DOD officials who spoke with the study’s author said contractors would make up 50-55 percent of the total workforce — troops plus contractors — in the future. This would actually be a significant reduction from the last two years, when contractors have averaged 62 percent of the total.

As we’ve reported, many questions about the army of contractors, which outnumbers the size of the U.S. troop force, remain unanswered and underexamined. We don’t have up to date numbers on how much the United States spends on private contracts, and the DOD does not break down the services done by contractors in Afghanistan (it does for Iraq).

As of September 2009, contractors providing security, transportation, and logistical services numbered 104,100 in Afghanistan and 113,700 in Iraq, according to the military. Most of the contractors in Afghanistan are local nationals, according to the military.

Eikenberry assures Afghans U.S. will stay beyond 2011

 



Congress to probe ‘U.S. funding of Taliban’

Congress to probe ‘U.S. funding of Taliban’

Raw Story
December 17, 2009

A House committee has launched an investigation into claims that US military contractors in Afghanistan are paying the Taliban to guarantee the safety of their transportation convoys, an allegation that could mean American taxpayers are indirectly funding the insurgency that has killed more than 900 American soldiers so far.

“Serious allegations have been [made] that private security providers for US transportation contractors in Afghanistan are regularly paying local warlords and the Taliban for security,” said Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. “After a preliminary inquiry, it has been determined these reports warrant a full-scale subcommittee investigation.”

Tierney said that if the allegations are proven to be true, “it would mean that the United States is unintentionally engaged in a vast protection racket and, as such, may be indirectly funding the very insurgents we are trying to fight.”

Read Full Article Here

Obama Allies Want New Tax To Pay For Cost Of Protecting Afghan Opium Fields, Bribing Taliban

U.S. Army paying the Taliban not to shoot at them

 



Afghan Puppet Government Wants US Troops Until 2024

Afghan Puppet Government Wants US Troops Until 2024

NY Times
December 9, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday that Afghanistan would not be able to pay for its own security until at least 2024, underscoring his government’s long-term financial dependence on the United States and NATO even as President Obama has pledged to begin withdrawing American troops in 2011.

Mr. Karzai spoke at a news conference here with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who did not put a timetable on the American and allied financial commitment but acknowledged that there was a “realism on our part that it will be some time before Afghanistan is able to sustain its security forces entirely on its own.”

The news conference came just hours after as many as a dozen people were killed during an allied raid in Laghman Province, Afghan officials said, prompting hundreds of villagers to march in protest.

Read Full Article Here

Hamid Karzai’s brother ‘on CIA payroll’

 



$1 million to keep one US soldier in Afghanistan for one year

$1 million to keep one US soldier in Afghanistan for one year

NY Times
November 14, 2009

While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.

Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWs0XPaxWo

 



Rachel Maddow: Obama Continuing Bush Doctrine

Rachel Maddow: Obama is Continuing the Bush Doctrine

NoWorldSystem.com
December 3, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYj7oX88vIE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGMnMQngSUw

She’s right;

Obama “19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder 3,000 people. . . As we know the men belonged to alqaeda . . . Alqaeda’s base of operations were in Afghanistan.”
Actually the ’19 hijackers’ were Saudi Arabians.

Obama “(Afghanistan) is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by alqaeda, from (Afghanistan) we were attacked on 9/11, and it’s from here that new attacks are being plotted as i speak. Because we know that alqaeda and other extremist seek nuclear weapons and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.” “We have to take away the tools of mass destruction. . . “
This is precisely what the Bush administration’s rationale; “The attacks from 9/11 came from Iraq or Afghanistan so we must fight alqaeda there so they don’t come to our shores with weapons of mass destruction.”. One shouldn’t have to argue any longer that Obama is just another puppet like George W. Bush, bending-over for the royal internationalist oligarchs that want global military dominance throughout the mideast region.

Many have warned long before the 2008 elections that Obama is a war candidate and is no different from McCain, Bush or Cheney on foreign policy. Many didn’t listen, and now we are stuck in Afghanistan which will cost us financially, spiritually and not to mention many more lives of U.S. soldiers. Obama is continuing to besmirch the name of Americans, causing more tension against Americans and incubating violent hatred against the west, terrorism that supposedly Obama wants to prevent from happening.

Even the former Soviet Union is warning Obama that a war against the Taliban futile and will only create more resistance in the region.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdsaHgcyIco

The same enemy that Obama says that we must fight were once U.S. allies, Osama Bin Laden worked for the United States until 9/11, and the Taliban were funded and trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. was already caught paying the Taliban not to kill U.S. troops and some are most likely on the CIA payroll.

Afghanis just want to be left alone, the entire Alqaeda/Taliban fraud is all a front for the real reasons for the war, and that is oil and heroin.

 

Michael Savage Reaction To Obama Afghanistan Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE7QkH91J8E

 

Obama ‘to expand drone strikes’ in Pakistan

Press TV
December 3, 2009

The administration of the Nobel peace laureate, President Barack Obama, has authorized an expansion of drone attacks on Pakistan’s troubled tribal regions, a new report says.

The New York Times report also says US and Pakistani officials are discussing the possibility of CIA operated drone strikes in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province for the first time.

The purported aim of the American air strikes is to target militants. But Pakistani media outlets say the raids have mostly killed civilians.


Obama bombs Pakistan

The unpopular strikes were initiated under the George W Bush administration in 2006.

Use of drones has increased since the Nobel peace laureate, Obama, became president.

Obama has repeatedly vowed to expand the controversial strikes that have raised anti-US sentiments across Pakistan.

The development also comes as Obama has announced his intention to deploy 33,000 more troops to Afghanistan and his top commander in Afghanistan says that Washington is not planning an early exit from Afghanistan.

Although nearly 110,000 foreign troops are present in Afghanistan after more than eight years of US-led invasion, they have not been able to establish stability in the war-ravaged country.

Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan was condemned by Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich.

“The war is a threat to our national security. We’ll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our soldiers’ lives on the line,” the Ohio congressman said in a statement.

Obama’s Troop Increase Means He ‘Owns’ Afghan War

Al-Qaeda plotting as I speak, says Barack Obama

Afghan surge in ‘vital national interest’: Obama

 



Obama’s Troop Surge to Begin by Christmas

Obama orders 30-35,000 more troops for Afghanistan, surge to begin by Christmas

AP
November 30, 2009

After months of debate, President Barack Obama will spell out a costly Afghanistan war expansion to a skeptical public Tuesday night, coupling an infusion of as many as 35,000 more troops with a vow that there will be no endless U.S. commitment. His first orders have already been made: at least one group of Marines who will be in place by Christmas.

Obama has said that he prefers “not to hand off anything to the next president” and that his strategy will “put us on a path toward ending the war.” But he doesn’t plan to give any more exact timetable than that Tuesday night.

The president will end his 92-day review of the war with a nationally broadcast address in which he will lay out his revamped strategy from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He spent part of Monday briefing foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls.

Before Obama’s call to Britain’s Gordon Brown, the prime minister announced that 500 more U.K. troops would arrive in southern Afghanistan next month — making a British total of about 10,000 in the country. And French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose nation has more than 3,000 in Afghanistan, said French troops would stay “as long as necessary” to stabilize the country.

Obama’s war escalation includes sending 30,000 to 35,000 more American forces into Afghanistan in a graduated deployment over the next year, on top of the 71,000 already there. There also will be a fresh focus on training Afghan forces to take over the fight and allow the Americans to leave.

Read Full Article Here

President Obama is looking motr like former President George W. Bush with Afghanistan plan

 



War tax proposed to pay for protecting Afghan opium fields, bribing Taliban

Obama Allies Want New Tax To Pay For Cost Of Protecting Afghan Opium Fields, Bribing Taliban

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 20, 2009

Not content with savaging American taxpayers with two huge new financial burdens during an economic recession, in the form of health care reform and cap and trade, close allies of Barack Obama have proposed a new war surtax that will force Americans to foot the bill for the cost of protecting opium fields in Afghanistan, paying off drug lords, and bribing the Taliban.

Warning that the cost of occupying Afghanistan is a threat to the Democrats’ plan to overhaul health care, lawmakers have announced their plan to make Americans pay an additional war tax that will be taken directly from their income, never mind the fact that around 36 per cent of federal taxes already go to paying for national defense.

“Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for,” the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of Obama, said in a joint statement on the “Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010 (PDF),” reports AFP.

The move is being led by the appropriately named House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, Representative John Murtha, who chairs that panel’s defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.

The tax would apply to anyone earning as little as $22,600 per year in 2011.

The proposal is described as “heavily symbolic” with little chance of passing, but it once again illustrates the hypocrisy of an administration that swept to power on the promise of “change” to the Neo-Con imperial agenda and a resolve to reduce U.S. military involvement overseas. In reality, there are more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now under Obama that at any time during the Bush administration.

At the height of the Bush administration’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.

According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.

What precisely would this extra tax be used to pay for? Namely, bribing the Taliban, paying off CIA drug lords, and protecting heroin-producing opium fields.

Numerous reports over the past two weeks have confirmed that the U.S. military is paying off the Taliban with bags of gold to prevent them from attacking vehicle convoys, proving that there is no real “war” in Afghanistan, merely a business agreement that allows the occupiers to continue their lucrative control of record opium exports while they finalize construction of dozens of new military bases from which to launch new wars.

The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world’s opium, with the equivalent of at least 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year.

This racket is secured by drug kingpins like the brother of disputed president Hamid Karzai. As a New York Times report revealed last month, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors, is on the CIA payroll.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA’s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a “war on terror” that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn’t even exist.

U.S. Army paying the Taliban not to shoot at them