Showing posts with label War Drums. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War Drums. Show all posts

Monday, January 25, 2010

Report: US Weapon Test Aimed at Iran Caused Haiti Quake


By Press TV

January 23, 2010 "
Press TV" -- An unconfirmed report by the Russian Northern Fleets says the Haiti earthquake was caused by a flawed US Navy 'earthquake weapons' test before the weapons could be utilized against Iran.

United States Navy test of one of its 'earthquake weapons' which was to be used against Iran, went 'horribly wrong' and caused the catastrophic quake in the Caribbean, the website of Venezuela's ViVe TV recently reported, citing the Russian report.

After the report was released, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also made a similar claim, saying that a US drill, carried out in preparation for a deliberate attempt to cause an earthquake in Iran, had led to the deadly incident in Haiti, claiming more than 110,000 lives.

Though Russian Northern Fleets' report was not confirmed by official sources, the comments attracted special attention in some US and Russian media outlets including Fox news and Russia Today.

Russia Today's report said that Moscow has also been accused of possessing and utilizing such weapons.

In 2002, a Georgian Green Party leader claimed that Moscow had instigated an earthquake on Georgian territory, the TV channel said.

According to ViVe, the unconfirmed Russian report says earlier this month the US carried out a similar test in the Pacific Ocean, which also caused another 6.5 magnitude earthquake in an area near the town of Eureka, California.

The California quake resulted in no deaths or serious injury, but left many buildings damaged.

The Venezuelan news website said that the report also introduced the possibility that the US Navy may have had "full knowledge" of the damage that the test could cause.

The report also speculated that knowledge of the possible outcome was why the US military had pre-positioned the deputy commander of US Southern Command, General P. K. Keen, on the island so that he could oversee relief efforts if the need arose.

Based on the alleged report, the ultimate goal of the US weapons tests was to initiate a series of deadly earthquakes in Iran to topple the current Islamic system in the country.

The tests are believed to be part of the United States' High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), which has been associated with many conspiracy theories.

Other than being blamed for earthquakes, HAARP has also been associated with weather anomalies that cause floods, droughts and hurricanes.

Some sources have even linked the 7.8 magnitude quake that shook the Chinese city of Sichuan in May 12, 2008 with the program.

Allegations have been made that since the late 1970's, the US has 'greatly advanced' the state of its earthquake weapons to the point where it is now utilizing devices that employ a Tesla Electromagnetic Pulse, Plasma and Sonic technology, along with 'shockwave bombs.'

Russia has accused the US military of employing such devices in Afghanistan to trigger the devastating 7.2 magnitude earthquake that hit the country back in March, 2002.

In the mid-1990s the Russian State Duma issued a press release on HAARP, which was signed by 90 deputies. The statement said the US was "creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves."

"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the transition from cold steel to firearms, or from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons.”

“This new type of weapons differ from previous types in that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence and its component,” the statement explained.

In 1997, US Secretary of Defense William Cohen also expressed concern about activities that "can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

The US government, however, has chosen to stick to its position that HAARP is merely a program aimed at analyzing the Earth's ionosphere for the purpose of developing communications and surveillance technology.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

False Flag Event in Detroit a Pretext to Invade Yemen

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 1, 2009

The UK PM Gordon Brown called for an “emergency summit of world leaders last night to stop Yemen becoming a new terror center,” reports The Sun. Brown declares the poverty-stricken country — increasingly described as a “failed state” by government officials and the corporate media (the same way Afghanistan and Iraq were deemed failed states before they were invaded) — represents an “evolving threat” threat and an “incubator” for terrorism.

featured stories   False Flag Event in Detroit a Pretext to Invade Yemen

Gordon Borwn



British PM Brown has called for a confab of world leaders to plot out action to be taken against al-Qaeda in Yemen.


“Yemen, as a potential safe haven for terrorism, presents a regional and global threat,” said Brown and added that Britain and the United States are “building our support for Yemen’s efforts to tackle” the supposed terrorist threat.

In other words, the governments of Britain and the United States are preparing to invade Yemen. Gordon Brown’s planned “emergency summit of world leaders” later this month should be considered a red flag indicating the elite plan to expand the GWOT into Yemen and Africa.

“The United States will more than double its security assistance to Yemen, officials said Friday, and Britain will host an international meeting this month to seek ways to prevent the poorest Arab nation from becoming an al-Qaeda stronghold,” reports The Washington Post. “The announcements highlight mounting Western concern over Yemen after a failed attempt to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas; the suspect is a Nigerian man who reportedly told authorities that he received training and equipment in the country, which borders Saudi Arabia.”

On Friday, Saudi warplanes carried out several airstrikes on northern Yemen villages and the oil kingdom sent troops into the country, according to Houthi fighters who oppose the government of the Arab country. Houthis accuse the Yemeni government of violating their civil rights and attempting to politically, economically, and religiously marginalize them.

The Yemeni government claims to have destroyed what it calls a “terrorist den” in the northern Sa’ada region on Thursday, according to a report filed by Reuters. Since the so-called underwear bomber’s failed attack, the United States has called for the government of Yemen to attack what it describes as an expansion of an al-Qaeda presence in the country.

Also on Friday, senior leaders of the Shabab rebels in Somalia promised to send their fighters beyond Somalia to Yemen and wherever jihad beckons, according to The New York Times. Sheik Muktar Robow, a senior rebel official, said that the fighters had been trained to fight the African Union peacekeeping force and the transitional federal government in Somalia but that Yemen was just across the Gulf of Aden and that “our brothers must be ready for our welcome.”

“The Shabab have increased their ties with Al Qaeda, which has recently been fighting the American-backed military in Yemen,” claims The New York Times.

“A group calling itself al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the failed bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit aircraft on Christmas Day. Nigerian suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab told investigators he had trained with al-Qaida operatives in Yemen. An increasing number of terrorism experts suggest that the turmoil in Yemen provides an ideal training ground for terrorists,” reports The Voice of America.

“Obama has formulated his new version of the Axis of Evil, composed of Afghanistan-Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen,” writes historian and author Webster Griffin Tarpley.

In Yemen, a civil war pits the Saudi-backed central government against the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels, whom the US has bombed at least twice this month. The goal here is to play Iran against Saudi Arabia so as to weaken both the pro-Moscow Achmadinejad government in Iran, and also those Saudi forces that are fed up with their status as a US protectorate. The US is openly now sponsoring a regroupment of “al Qaeda” (the CIA Moslem legion) in Yemen , including by sending fighters direct from Guantanamo . The new CIA-promoted entity synthetic entity is “Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP, a gaggle of US patsies, dupes, and fanatics which is claiming credit for the Umar Farouk incident. The US hopes to further dominate the exit from the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, while also easing pressure on the battered US dollar by jacking up the price of oil in an atmosphere of tension on the Arabian peninsula.

December 31, 2009: Webster Tarpley talks with Alex Jones about the Detroit false flag event and the coming attack on Yemen. Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.

It should be obvious now that the Umar Farouk incident was a false flag event designed precisely to cobble together a pretext for an invasion of the “failed state” Yemen where al-Qaeda has magically and conveniently taken up residence. Gordon Brown’s summit later this month will serve as a planning session on formulating the invasion.

As noted on the Haskell Family Blog today, the FBI has stumbled through no less than four versions of what happened in Amsterdam and Detroit. Confronted with the eye witness account of the event as told by Michigan lawyer Kurt Haksell, who related his story on the Alex Jones Show earlier in the week, the government is attempting to sow confusion and disinformation by spinning various distorted accounts and manufacturing outright lies about what happened. In many ways this a repeat of what the government — with the eager participation of the corporate media — did in the days and weeks following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

December 29, 2009: Alex Jones talks with underwear bomber eye witness Kurt Haskell. Part 2, Part 3.

Finally, it should be noted that al-Qaeda presence in Yemen is not a new development. As CIA contractor Billy Waug wrote in his autobiography, he was part of a concerted effort to train al-Qaeda operatives in the country beginning in 1994.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Attack Yemen?

By Congressman Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul gives his thoughts on Yemen, the attempted airline bombing, the motivations of Al Qaeda, the radicalization of the Middle East, and the negation of our liberties to government provided "security."

“The bigger the problem and the more the fear is built up, the more they take away our personal liberties and turn us all into zombies and the American people go along with it and say as long as it makes us safer I guess it’s OK to go along but it’s time the American people woke up and started realizing that there’s a bit of propaganda going on and quite possibly this incident will not only undermine our personal liberties but will also accelerate our intervention and the violence occurring in the Middle East,”

Posted December 29, 2009


U.S. Reviews Targets for Yemen Strike

Press TV
December 30, 2009

Washington and Sana’a are reviewing targets for a possible retaliation strike on Yemeni soil in the wake of a failed Christmas Day attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, which al-Qaeda in Yemen claims to have organized.

Two senior US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN on Tuesday that the effort is aimed at devising options for the White House, in case President Barack Obama orders a retaliatory strike.

The officials added that the effort is to see whether targets can be specifically linked to the airliner incident and its planning.

US special operations forces and intelligence agencies, and their Yemeni counterparts, are working to identify potential al-Qaeda targets in Yemen, one of the officials said.

The CNN report added that “by all accounts, the agreement would allow the US to fly cruise missiles, fighter jets or unmanned armed drones against targets in Yemen with the consent of that government.”

Investigators believe the Flight 253 bomber suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was radicalized before he went to Yemen, Fox News reported citing unnamed sources. According to one source, Abdulmutallab traveled to Yemen sometime in late 2008 or early 2009.

He was there for several weeks or months, and investigators believe Abdulmutallab was ‘vetted for the mission’ while in Yemen.

Abdulmutallab, 23, told US officials after his arrest that he had received training and instructions from al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

Evidence collected shows that Abdulmutallab also was a ‘big fan’ of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric based in Yemen, who the US Department for Homeland Security claims had acted as a spiritual leader for three of the 9/11 hijackers.

Yemen is the ancestral homeland of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and has been the scene of several attacks claimed by the group on foreign missions, tourist sites and oil installations.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Another false flag terror attack as justification for war and trampling on our freedoms

The Blood of Patriots and Tyrants
December 29, 2009

I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!

How impudent we Americans have become, with our “tea parties”, marching on Washington, demanding smaller government, trying to abolish the private Federal Reserve, demanding government get out of our lives, becoming tired of endless war. Who do we think we are?

Well, they’re not going to let us get away with it. They’re going to remind us why we need them. Why they must take more control. Why we need to be degraded and humiliated further. Oh, and they want to bomb more Muslim countries. That will make them stop participating in this government-run black op. Plus, everybody loves a good bombing. It looks like oh so much fun watching it live on Fox News, and you never have to worry about the controlled media showing the mangled bodies of women and children and elderly, who deserve to die anyway because they’re not Americans. And when the families and friends of the dead, or the fortunate survivors of our bombs, decide to seek vengeance for the murder of their loved ones, well they’ll just be more terrorists that we have to kill in order to keep the heimat safe.

Meanwhile, it wasn’t degrading and humiliating enough for the TSA to pull grandma out of line to make her take off her shoes to make sure she’s not another shoe bomber, or have your teenage daughter or your girlfriend or wife felt up by some tax feeding pervert, no. The government put on a show for you Christmas day, and now they will punish you for their crime. They will make you miserable for their purposeful negligence. You or I aren’t allowed to bring a fish hook on board a plane – and if the statist shills in the media have their way, you won’t be allowed to bring perfume or cologne on board either (this is all liberals’ fault, don’t you know?) – yet this patsy was able to board with explosives that are easily detectable, partially contained inside a syringe. You or I need how many forms of ID to get on a plane, yet this person was escorted past security by an unknown person, without any identification or passport, on an international flight. There are well over 1.3 million people on the TSA no-fly list, who have not been charged with a crime, yet this person, with supposed terror connections – his own father throws him under the bus – was on a watch list but not the no-fly list. No, this wasn’t a black op at all. It was al Qaeda, which isn’t really the CIA, trying to scare you again. And the government, which knew this was coming yet, we are to believe, just dropped the ball – totally benign negligence – would have you believe that they can keep you safe now, this time, if only you’ll degrade and humiliate yourself further and give up more liberty and privacy. Just a little more, they swear. It’s FYOG. Hey, freedom isn’t free.

So, it wasn’t convenient at all that this kamikaze hid his “bomb” in his underpants. As if that were the determining factor that allowed him to sneak past security undetected. Now, if only you’ll give up these quaint, antiquated notions (see also here, here, here, here, here…) of a right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, and allow them to put millimeter wave scanners in airports so some worthless TSA slob can examine you naked, the government can stop this kind of terrorism, which is of their own making, once and for all. That is, until the people realize it’s all a sham, a theatrical performance, used as justification to oppress them and bomb foreigners, at which point the government will just put on another show to remind us all that we’re slaves, and should keep our mouths shut and our faces in the mud. That’s freedom, baby. Love it or leave it.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Lieberman: Yemen is ‘tomorrow’s war’ if pre-emptive action not taken

Jordan Fabian
The Hill
December 27, 2009

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) Sunday said that Yemen could be the ground of America’s next overseas war if Washington does not take preemptive action to root out al-Qaeda interests there.

Lieberman, who helms the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the U.S. will have to take an active approach in Yemen after multiple recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. were linked back to the Middle Eastern nation.

The Connecticut senator said that an administration official told him that “Iraq was yesterday’s war, Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war.”

Read entire article

And the Nobel Peace Prize Goes to: a Warrior

by Kaan Kutlu Atac


Global Research, December 27, 2009
Sunday Zaman

Just two weeks before being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama made a historic speech about the war in Afghanistan at West Point, the most prestigious military academy in the US.

In his speech to the military cadets, which was carefully written and professionally delivered, Mr. President used the word “war” 25 times, the word “kill” six times and “peace” only three times.

In his Nobel Prize speech in Oslo, not long after West Point, the same gravity of the language of “war” was seen again with the same professionalism: “war” 44 times, “kill” five times and “peace” 31 times.

The first one was delivered to military personnel while the latter was to highly distinguished guests from all over the world. The common point of these speeches was that the Obama administration intended that world opinion relay the same message: The US will not close the Gates of Janus, meaning that the hegemonic world power will keep the war in its main policy objectives instead of seeking immediate peace and stability on the global scene.

After carefully studying both speeches, we can make some assessments about President Obama’s immediate foreign policy priorities. Mr. Obama’s clear message is that the US is not going to war with peoples but against badly behaved rulers and administrations whose policies do not accommodate the US.

Ending his first year of presidency, Mr. Obama, whose personality and promises had once given hope to the world (or at least some thought so!), has surprised the world by rather directly using the language of “war.”

Mr. Obama’s vision for new foreign policy objectives of the US during his presidential campaign inspired some optimism around the world. But nowadays, with his direct speeches, he has even tried to convince world public opinion about a “just war.”

From now on we may expect that every step to be taken by the military will be justified by the magic phrase “just war.” But the difficulty lies in the simple logic of what a “just war” means to the people who have been and possibly will be affected by America’s mighty and destructive military power.

In executing a “just war,” Hannibal of Carthage may help Mr. Obama. But it will not be an easy task for the Obama administration to reassure the people whose rulers would be targeted by this hegemonic power.

History shows us the very real proof of how a war can be conducted: Use of force only claims lives regardless of whether the action is right. The international media covers, on a daily basis, the death of innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Nobody can provide any justification for a “just war,” and Mr. Obama is not exempt from the lessons of history. In the hall of fame, Mr. Obama, at least for the time being, deserves his place with former President Bush the younger. There is no doubt Obama’s policies will follow the same path Bush’s did. Therefore, there is little hope for global stability and security, and no hope for peace.

Looking for someone who dares to cross the Rubicon? (arabaslik)

Just before the presidential election in 2008, I participated in a roundtable meeting in Washington, D.C., where one of the topics was what could change in American foreign policies if Obama were to be elected president.

I voiced my suspicions then as to whether Mr. Obama would have enough courage and power to change what President Bush had done in Afghanistan and then Iraq (it is ironic that Mr. Obama’s election motto was “Change you can believe in”). “Is he the man who will dare to cross the Rubicon?” was the question I asked the American liberals. As you may well guess, even liberals and democrats were not entirely sure of Mr. Obama’s ability to change the foreign policy of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq “because the national interest of the country was determined so long ago and has been executed according to the United States institutions’ decisions.” At best “it would take at least one term of any president to adjust and adapt - no real change.”

In fact, for those who are familiar with US foreign policy and its execution, a shift toward promising policies hardly ever occurs in American politics, especially when its armed forces are already engaged in overseas military operations.

What the Obama administration promises is an ironic Pax Carthage. When Rome defeated and literally wiped out the civilization of Carthage, Roman Senator Cato’s repeated wish that “Carthage must perish” was realized. The ghosts of neo-cons from the Bush administration are still whispering in the corridors of the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department in Washington, D.C. It seems there are a lot of jobs they promised to do years ago. Anyone who may have hoped that Mr. Obama would move US foreign policy in a new direction was shattered by his two speeches.

The possible effects of Obama’s policies on the Middle East in general and specifically on Turkey are the subject of another article.


Kaan Kutlu Ataç is an international security analyst and a doctoral candidate at Hacettepe University.

Osama bin Laden’s family missing since 9/11 attacks found living in secret compound in Iran

Scott Warren
Mail Online
December 23, 2009

Eight years of uncertainty over the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden’s closest family members has been blown open by a relative’s admission that they are living in a secret compound in Iran.

One of the terror mastermind’s wives, six of his children and 11 of his grandchildren are living in a high-security compound outside Tehran.

It exposes as false the repeated denials by the country’s government that members of the family were living in Iran.

Omar Ossama bin Laden, the fourth-eldest of Osama’s sons, claims he was unaware of his brothers and sisters’ location, or even whether they were still alive, until they phoned him in November.

Read entire article

Russia to work on new nuclear missiles: Medvedev

Reuters
December 25, 2009

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia will work on a new generation of nuclear missiles to ensure its nuclear deterrent remains effective, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday.

Medvedev said the new missiles would be developed in full accordance with arms agreements made with the United States.

“Of course, we will develop new systems, including delivery systems, that is, missiles,” Medvedev said in an end-of-year interview with state-controlled television channels.

READ FULL ARTICLE

Thursday, July 9, 2009

NATO's War Plans For The High North

Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea
by Rick Rozoff

Since the beginning of the year the United States and NATO have repeatedly indicated in both word and deed their intention to lay claim to and extend their military presence in what they refer to as the High North: The Arctic Circle and the waters connecting with it, the Barents and the Norwegian Seas, as well as the Baltic.

Washington issued National Security Presidential Directive 66 on January 12, 2009 which includes the bellicose claim that "The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region [which] include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations." [1] Later in the same month the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] held a two-day Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North in the capital of Iceland attended by the bloc's secretary general and its top military commanders.

This coordinated initiative has been covered in a previous article in this series [2] and plans by the West to encroach on Arctic territory and confront Russia in the western region of the ocean have been addressed in another. [3]

Over the past month efforts by NATO member states, individually and collectively, to increase their military presence and warfighting ability in the High North have accelerated dramatically.



Sweden: NATO's Testing Ground And Battleground

The alarming and aggressive campaign is exemplified by the ongoing 10-day Loyal Arrow 2009 NATO military exercises being conducted in Sweden, described by a major American daily newspaper as "A NATO rapid-reaction force...on a war footing in Swedish Lapland" which consists of "Ten countries, 2,000 troops, a strike aircraft carrier, and 50 fighter jets -  including the US Air Force's F-15 Eagle...participating in war games near contested Arctic territories."

The same source reflects that "Choosing this place for war games reflects the growing strategic importance of the Arctic, which is estimated to contain a quarter of the Earth's oil and gas...." [4]

A NATO website offers these details:

"Ten NATO and non-NATO nations will participate in the live flying exercise LAW 09 in Sweden from 8 to 18 June 2009. Some 50 fast jets, which will be based at Norrbotten Wing, Sweden will participate in the exercise. The aim of the exercise is to train units and selected parts of the NATO Response Force Joint Force Air Component Headquarters in the coordination and conduct of air operations. Additionally, NATO Airborne Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft, as well as other transport aircraft and helicopters, will support the exercise. Some of the participating units will be flying in from bases in Norway and Finland.

"The exercise is based upon a fictitious scenario. Within this scenario, elements of the NATO Response Force (NRF)...will be deployed to a theatre of operations. The NRF was created to provide the Alliance with an effective tool to face the new security threats of the 21st century. It is a rapidly deployable, multinational and joint force with modern equipment able to carry out the full range of Alliance missions whenever and wherever needed, as tasked by the North Atlantic Council.

"About 800-900 troops from Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey and the United States as well as NATO’s airborne early warning component will participate." [5]

US Air Force personnel flew in from the US-used base in Mildenhall, England and "Air and ground crews from United States Air Forces in Europe joined military units from about 10 other nations June 8...." [6]

The war games are based in the Bothnian Bay in the Northern Baltic Sea and are the largest display of air power in the area's history.

On the first day of the exercises, June 8, it was reported that "The NATO-led air force drill Loyal Arrow started in Northern Sweden today. The British aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious [with 1,000 soldiers] reached the Bothnia Bay. 50 airplanes and 2,000 persons, aircraft carrier personnel included, from ten countries will take part in what will be the biggest air force drill ever in the Finnish-Swedish Bothnia Bay." [7]

Sweden's Lulea airbase and Norway's at Bodo and Finland's at Oulu are being employed for the NATO war games.

Loyal Arrow is centered on a "fictitious scenario" in which "the NATO Response Force (NRF) [is] deployed to a theatre of operations, Lapistan.

"Lapistan is a fictitious undemocratic, unstable country that is ruled by a military clique which hosts terrorist training camps. The exercise's scenario is centered over a conflict over oil and natural gas with Bothnia, a fictitious neighboring NATO country, with some presence of nearby neutral fictitious countries Nordistan and Suomia, who refer to Norway and Finland, respectively." [8]

As the war games were getting underway Stefan Lindgren, vice chairman of Afghan Solidarity in Sweden, filed a complaint with the official ombudsman for discrimination matters and stated that the NATO exercise was both a defamation of the Sami people and also Muslims in Sweden. The "istan" ending reveals a mental connection with NATO's war in Afghanistan.

The indigenous people of the region, the Sami, protested against the racist term "Laps" - forbidden in Sweden - and also against the description of the exercise. [9]

A mainstream newspaper elaborated on the controversy in reporting that "The main indigenous people of Northern Sweden, the Sami, are discontented with the fact that the 'enemy nation' in the exercise's scenario is called 'Lapistan' and have joined the protesters against NATO in the demonstrations. The name is invented by NATO and resembles the derogatory term for Sami people, 'Lapps'". [10]

The American Christian Science Monitor followed up on the story on June 11 with the following quotes:

"'These exercises increase the risk of a conflict,' says Anna Ek, head of Sweden's Peace and Arbitration Society. 'They send out offensive and aggressive signals. Should we really be planning for a conflict with Russia while there is still a window of opportunity for cooperation in the Arctic?'

"'Neither the Parliament nor the defense committee were informed about the size of this exercise,' says Peter Radberg, a Green Party member of Parliament. 'It looks like a serious attempt to market NATO in Sweden....It risks causing a military escalation in a region where we should be disarming.'" [11]

As the first excerpt reveals, not only were the security, livestock and the very status of the Sami people of northern Sweden endangered, but Loyal Arrow 2009, in conjunction with other military exercises and initiatives to be examined later, is directly targeted against Russia, NATO's only challenger in its drive into and for domination over the Arctic.

The NATO Out of Sweden group organized activities in Lulea (the site of the Swedish airbase used in the drills) and demonstrated against NATO's use of Norrbotten County as a training ground and firing range for prospective actions at home and abroad.

The organization's Anna-Karin Gudmundson said, "This [exercise] can be perceived as very provocative. The Barents region with its proximity to the Arctic makes it a sensitive area. With all the talk about melting ice and the fight over natural resources this can look like a demonstration of power from NATO's side." [12]

Ofog, another Swedish peace group, announced on June 8 that it was deploying activists to a bombing range near the Vidsel Air Base in Norrbotten to "stop the preparation of war crimes" and to "prevent NATO from bombing the area further." [13]

The group issued a press release that said "Just like NATO we will be in the air, on the land and in the sea. We will do everything in our power to show NATO that their business is hideous and deadly.

"NATO is not a defensive alliance. It is the world's largest nuclear weapons club and war machine." [14]

On the second day of the exercises, June 10th, five members of Ofog were arrested after penetrating the bombing range.

Six more members were arrested as the NATO bombing continued and one of the Ofog activists at the range, Miriam Cordts, said: "NATO is the world's biggest war machine and nuclear weapons club. This aerial exercise in northern Sweden is their largest this year and is designed to make the NATO Response Force even more able to attack wherever they want. 90% of those who are killed in NATO's wars are civilians. It is our responsibility as human beings to do all we can to stop this exercise.” [15]

The Ofog activists' intention was to bring a halt to the bombing with their presence, but the NATO exercise continued.

A spokesman for the group commented, "We know that NATO bombs civilians, but this is the first time they have threatened to bomb civilians in Sweden” [16]

Sweden, though not yet a full member of NATO, is hosting the exercises through obligations to the Alliance's Partnership for Peace program and in doing so advancing ever closer to complete NATO integration despite opposition by the majority of Swedes.

Sweden In NATO: Neutrality Is Past Tense

The groundwork for Sweden's incorporation into NATO has been methodically planned for years.
     
In mid-May Member of Parliament and Liberal Party foreign policy spokesperson Birgitta Ohlsson stated that "For me, and for the Liberal Party (Folkpartiet), it is more evident than ever before that Sweden should be a member of NATO. Political parties can't just follow public opinion, they have to influence it too - and isolationism is very passe." [17]

Shortly thereafter the nation's defense minister, Sten Tolgfors, announced the "biggest restructuring of Sweden's armed forces in modern times" and that "Sweden will, for the first time in many decades, have one defense organization."

What he meant was defined more clearly when he added, "Today, we have a force with one organization for national use, based on a conscript system, and another for international use, based on standing units.

"We will reform our defense based on the lessons we learned from our lead-nation position with the Nordic Battle Group. We will have a battle-group-based defense in the future.

"We have built the Nordic Battle Group together. We are together with Finland in Afghanistan."

That Afghanistan wasn't the only rationale behind Sweden's increased militarization and integration into NATO structures was revealed when Tolgfors, while speaking of the Loyal Arrow exercises in June, said, "Russia has certainly raised its tone of voice over the last couple of years...." [18]

Two days later he visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels where he met with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and "briefed the Secretary General on the upcoming transformation of Sweden's defence capabilities, which should make Swedish forces more efficient, more deployable and more capable of conducting international operations." [19]
   
Four days before NATO launched the Loyal Arrow war games, Sweden's ambassador to France, Gunnar Lund, "speaking on behalf of Sweden's foreign minister Carl Bildt," promoted the use of a five-nation Nordic contingent of the European Union's battle groups (to function under NATO's lead through the Berlin Plus and related agreements) in saying "On the military side, I would like to draw your attention to the use of battle groups - a potentially very useful tool to the support of international peace and security."   

The Swedish government regretted that the EU hadn't earlier employed the Nordic battle group - with forces from Sweden, Finland, Norway, Ireland and Estonia - and "did not give the green light to sending it to Chad and the Central African Republic last year." [20]

(Sweden, Finland and Ireland are three-fifths of Europe's remaining - nominal - neutral nations, the other two being Switzerland and Austria. All five have now deployed military contingents of varying sizes to serve under NATO in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. In Switzerland a peace group, Switzerland without an Army, "accus[ing] the government of trying to move neutral Switzerland to the NATO military alliance," recently turned in over 100,000 signatures - the amount required to introduce legislation in the parliament - to the federal government against a proposed purchase of new fighter jets, to insure NATO interoperability.)

1,300 Kilometer Border With Russia: NATO Integrates Finland

Last month a meeting of the Nordic Defence Ministerial [the defense chiefs of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland; there is also a joint Nordic-Baltic Defence Ministerial) occurred in Finland where the defense ministries of the five nations "discussed security developments in Northern Europe and exchanged views on the ongoing national defence transformation processes" and "evaluated common challenges in Africa and Afghanistan."

"The ministers discussed developments in the High North and possibilities for Nordic cooperation there.

"Similarly, they analyzed possibilities for enhanced Nordic cooperation in the Baltic Sea." [21]

This came shortly after "Former Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg...concluded in a report on Nordic defence cooperation that the five Nordic countries should strengthen security cooperation in the Arctic...." [22]

Less than a week later US Air Force pilots were in Finland to train their counterparts in air refueling procedures of the sort used for long-distance missions and warfare.

According to the operations officer of the Finnish Air Force's 21st Fighter Squadron, "a captain who asked to remain anonymous due to government policy," the week-long exercises with Navy F-18 Hornets and an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, "help[ed] the squadron, and the service as a whole, meet a government requirement to be able to deploy outside Finland to support NATO forces. Although Finland is not a member of NATO, it is a part of the organization's Partnership of Peace program, which USAFE [U.S. Air Forces in Europe] also supports.

"This opens our eyes to a much wider operating area."
 
The report from which the above comes informed readers that "It's the first time U.S. Air Forces in Europe has deployed a tanker team to Finland for an air-to-air refueling operation." [23]

On May 25 of this year the Finnish foreign trade and development minister, Paavo Vayrynen of the Centre Party, said his party's partner in the ruling coalition, the conservative National Coalition Party, "had mounted a sustained campaign to mould public opinion behind NATO membership." [24]

Similar initiatives, concerted and surreptitious, to drag nations into NATO against the will of a clear majority of their populations are underway in Sweden and Cyrpus, inter alia.

From June 1-4 NATO's Allied Command Transformation (ACT), based in Norfolk, Virginia, and the Finnish Defence Forces conducted a NPETN [NATO & Partners' Education and Training Portal] in Helsinki.

A Turkish air force colonel assigned to NPETN described the program as "basically a human network that provides a venue to the members
including the NATO Defense College, Joint Warfare Centre, Joint Force Training Centre, NATO School, NATO Communications and Information Systems School, NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre, NATO Centres of Excellence, and NATO and Partner Nation's military education and training centres." [25]

The three-day conference wasn't a bilateral affair between NATO's headquarters in the United States and Finland, however, as it took in nations from no fewer than five continents.

"For the first time in conference history, a representative from Australia, a NATO Contact Country, will attend the discussions."

The same Turkish NATO representative quoted earlier said, "The conference gives us the opportunity to reach our goals because we will have more input from our Partner Nations, representatives from NATO, Partnership for Peace (PfP), Mediterranean Dialogue (MD), and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI), Contact Countries (CC)." [26]

With NATO's 28 full members, 25 Partnership for Peace candidates, seven members of the Mediterranean Dialogue, six of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative [the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council) and several Contact Countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, etc., the number adds up to nearly a third of the 192 nations in the world.

On the day after the NATO conference in Finland's capital ended, the nation's police arrested six peace activists for painting NATO symbols in - blood - red on the walls of the Finnish Defence Command headquarters in Helsinki.

The group, Muurinmurtajat, released a statement saying "it wanted to draw attention to how the practical work of bringing Finland militarily closer to NATO is being done at the Defence Command." [27]

Five days later the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Finland on defense technology.

"Finland is a long-standing participant in the NATO Partnership for Peace programme with a strong track record of contributing to NATO missions and exercises.

"Sweden was the first partner country to sign a similar agreement with NC3A in 2007." [28] On the same day the Finnish armed forces began "their largest military exercise in decades."

Maanvyory 2009 (Landslide 2009) includes "18,000 service men, including 7,000 reservists from all three branches of the service." [29]

Norway: NATO Moves Its Military Into The Arctic

On June 2nd it was announced that Norway will move its Operational Command Headquarters from the south of the nation at Stavanger north to Reitan outside Bodo, "thus making Norway the first country to move its military command leadership to the Arctic."

"The move is in line with the Government's increased focus on the northern regions. With the new location above the Arctic Circle, Norway's supreme operational command will gain first hand contact with all questions concerning the High North." [30]

During a meeting of NATO parliamentarians in Oslo from May 22-26 NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer held meetings with Prime Minister Stoltenberg, Foreign Minister Store and Defence Minister Strom-Erichsen and had an audience with King Harald V. "Discussions focused on NATO's post-summit agenda, including the upcoming update of the Alliance Strategic Concept, relations with Russia and new security challenges facing Allies." [31]

At the same meeting of NATO parliamentarians Norwegian cabinet members told the participants that "NATO should increase its role in the High North," with State Secretary for Defence Espen Barth Eide insisting "that the High North should be addressed by the next reorganisation of the NATO command structure...." [32]

Norwegian Ambassador to NATO, Kim Traavik, escorted the ambassadors of five fellow NATO countries on a "study trip" to the north of the country after the parliamentarian meeting ended to inspect the site of the intended future conflict.

A week before, Norwegian Minister of Defence Anne-Grete Strom- Erichsen "outlined the importance of shaping a common position in defence and security matters concerning the High North. The Minister particularly called for 'strengthening the relevance of NATO.' Considering Russia's recent push in its military and economic spheres in the Arctic Sea, Strom-Erichsen sees a worrying potential for a possible destabilisation in the region." [33]

The defense chief in her own words:

"The Alliance is at the core of the security and defence strategies of all but one Arctic Ocean state. It therefore cannot avoid defining its role in the area. The challenge will be to devise policies that address fundamental Western security interests...." [34]

At the current time NATO's Allied Command Transformation is conducting a CWID [Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration] in Lillehammer, Norway from June 1-26 "with particular emphasis on those that would be deployed with NATO-led operations such as Article 5 Response, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Active Endeavour, Kosovo Force or within a NATO Response Force (NRF)...." [35]

An Article 5 response means activating NATO's collective military assistance provision as has been done with the nearly eight-year-old Afghan war.

On June 6th it was reported that Norway had established an historical record in arms exports and that "Most of the export of Norwegian defence material goes to NATO member nations and to Sweden and Finland." [36]

Further Encroachment On Russia: NATO In The Baltic Sea

It was reported late last month that NATO would continue its rotational air patrols over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania until at least 2020. [37] As has been mentioned by Russian officials, the NATO warplanes involved are a five-minute flight from Russia's second largest city of St. Petersburg.

The Baltic Eagle NATO Response Force (NRF-14) multinational exercise is being conducted from June 2-18 in the Adazi Military Area in Latvia to prepare the Baltic Battalion of Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian armed forces "to test the combat readiness level of the unit."

"According to the exercise scenario, the troops will deploy into the region of a military conflict and will conduct a wide scale of operations....A significant number of modern weaponry and equipment, including third generation Spike anti-tank guided missiles, modern heavy SISU 8x8 multi purpose transporters, SISU armored personnel carriers, personal assault rifles G36, and others, will be used in the exercise...."

The Baltic Battalion is a component of the NATO Response Force which in turn "is a highly ready and technologically advanced force of the Alliance made up of land, air, sea and special forces components that can deploy quickly wherever needed. It is self-sustainable and capable of performing missions worldwide across the whole spectrum of operations." [38]

During the same period the US Navy is has been leading the annual Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) exercises in the region.

"Maritime forces from 12 countries will participate in the largest multinational naval exercise this year in the Baltic Sea June 8-19.

"The Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) exercise is an annual event aimed at improving interoperability and cooperation among regional allies" and this years includes naval forces from the US, Britain, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden." [39]

Present are US Rear Adm. John N. Christenson, commander of the Carrier Strike Group 12, and Swedish Rear Adm. Anders Grenstad, commander of the Maritime Component Command and "the Swedish equivalent of the U.S. Navy's chief of naval operations." [40]

Five days before BALTOPS 2009 began, the USS Mount Whitney - the flagship of the US Navy's Sixth Fleet and the command and control ship for the Commander Joint Command Lisbon and the Commander Striking Force NATO, deployed against Russia in the Black Sea after last August's Caucasus war - arrived off the coast of Lithuania and hosted American expatriate and current Lithuanian president Valdas Adamkus.

The latter used the occasion to affirm that "On behalf of the entire nation, the Mount Whitney's presence is significant to the entire country. It shows respect, provides additional strength and belief to fight for their commitment, but most importantly, the solidarity of the NATO community."

The US commander responded with, "I would like to publicly thank Lithuania for their [sic] support in Kosovo, Iraq, and especially Afghanistan." [41]

German Navy, Air Force Return To Neighborhood Of Leningrad

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung toured the Baltics last week and met with his Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian counterparts to "discuss...pressing issues within NATO and the European Union" and to "strengthen the well-functioning security relations with the three Baltic states." [42]

German warplanes are to take over the NATO Baltic patrol later this year, which is sure to conjure up memories among those in St. Petersburg old enough to have survived the 900-day siege of the city when it was Leningrad.

As is the arrival of the German navy recently. "A German auxiliary repair ship, one of 10 German units, provides support to more than 40 allied ships participating in [the] Baltic Operations exercise 2009 here...." [43]

NATO's Main Base On The Baltic: Poland

In mid-May a senior Polish defense official stated that "Poland expects a U.S. Patriot battery to be deployed on its soil in 2009 regardless of whether President Barack Obama opts to press ahead with missile defence plans in Europe" and urged NATO "not to neglect potential security threats closer to home in Europe and...expressed [the Polish government's] willingness to host alliance infrastructure." [44]

Washington was quick to oblige: "The U.S. Department of State has confirmed that the Patriot missile battery will be deployed in Poland regardless of what happens with plans for the missile shield system." [45]

Three days later the Financial Times reported that in relation to the Pentagon stationing Patriot missiles in Poland "talks were on track for the completion of final agreements in July, followed by a deployment of 100-110 US soldiers and 196 missiles by the year-end."

Polish Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski was quoted as saying, "This will be the first time US soldiers are stationed on Polish soil, other than those who come under NATO control, on exercises for example....This will be symbolic for Poland." [46]

In early June Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk affirmed "that Poland had not changed its mind about the U. S. anti-missile shield," [47] specifically the stationing of 10 American ground-based interceptor missiles in Redzikowo, northern Poland, site of a former Nazi German Luftwaffe airbase, another historical parallel that should make any informed and sensible Russian nervous.

Late last week Polish government spokesman Pawel Gras said that "the bilateral agreement on the deployment of a U.S.-sponsored anti-missile shield in Poland provided for the delivery of a combat-ready battery" and that planned US Patriot missiles would be "armed and stationed permanently." [48]

On the same day Poland's Defense Minister Bogdan Klich "announced that NATO will locate the Joint Battle Command Centre in Bydgoszcz, northern Poland, following a decision by defense ministers at a NATO meeting in Brussels." [49] The Joint Battle Command Centre will be added to the NATO Joint Forces Training Centre already in Bydgoszcz.

The meeting of NATO defense chiefs was held in Brussels on June 11 and included the defense ministers of all 28 NATO and 22 partner states; the heads of fifty national militaries discussed the war in Afghanistan, the occupation of the Serbian province of Kosovo, naval operations off the coast of Somalia and the Georgian-Russian conflict in the South Caucasus.

The defense chiefs of half a hundred nations not only discussed military operations in three continents but in addition "members of the Nuclear Planning Group held consultations on key current issues related to the Alliance’s nuclear policy." [50]

The central component of NATO's 21st Century new Strategic Concept currently being crafted is a continuation and intensification of the bloc's drive east and Poland is marked for a large share of its military deployments and infrastructure.

Poland's Defense Minister Klich "highlight[ed] the fact that NATO has decided to heavily invest in Poland by modernizing military infrastructure including air and sea bases."

The sea bases will be on the Baltic and the air bases within easy striking distance of Russia and its two largest cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Klich offered details on the plans decided upon by NATO last Thursday in revealing that "The Alliance has made the decision to open a new NATO cell, a new joint regiment within NATO. According to the decision, commanders from three regiments will be located in Bydgoszcz."

"In Bydgoszcz, we will have the permanent commanders of the battalion and other components: one of the six joint mobile modules, a security component and logistics and support operators." [51] The unit stationed in Poland will be composed of approximately 200 NATO soldiers.

Several days earlier Klich invited the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and Russia's neighbor Ukraine to join a collective international expeditionary brigade, for alleged peacekeeping operations.

"The Polish defense minister...said that the talks dealt with Ukraine's cooperation with NATO and the European Union, as well as the countries' role in military operations, including Ukrainian servicemen's participation in operations in Afghanistan....The parties also discussed assistance to Ukraine in its efforts to join NATO....

"Ukrainian and Polish defense ministers Yuriy Yekhanurov and Bogdan Klich have invited the Baltic states to join the initiative on the formation of a joint peacekeeping brigade." [52]

The First American War Against Russia In The Arctic: Lessons Learned And Not Learned

From May 11-21 NATO held the twice-annual Joint Warrior war games - Europe's largest military exercise - off the coast of Scotland in the North Sea, which connects with the Norwegian Sea bordering the Arctic Ocean.

"More than 20 warships, 75 aircraft and hundreds of personnel were tested in various scenarios" including one in which "a task group of 33 ships and French marines were sent into the fictitious Northern Dispute Zone to tackle the 'Dragonians' who had been harassing the 'Caledonians and Avalonians.

"Soldiers, sailors and air crews from Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and the US were also involved." [53]

According to the same source the autumn Joint Warrior exercises will be extended from two to three weeks this year.

Regarding American participation in last month's drills, "USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51), USS Porter (DDG 78), USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), USNS Kanawha (T-AO 193), and COMDESRON 24 took part in the scenario-driven engagement, along with vessels from nine other members of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). [The Joint warrior] exercise [is] expected to increase fleet efficiency and battle readiness for U.S. and allied navies alike." [54]

On the other end of the Arctic, from June 15-26 the US will conduct operation Northern Edge 2009 in Alaska which will include "More than 200 aircraft, including B-52s, F-16s and Blackhawk helicopters....In addition, the USS John C. Stennis and its carrier strike group will be operating out of the Gulf of Alaska during the exercises. The nuclear-powered supercarrier has an air wing of more than 70 aircraft and a crew of 5,000 sailors." [55]

In a feature from a newspaper in the state of Michigan on May 28th, a review of a documentary film included this commentary on a US military unit deployed to Russia's Arctic region in the ending days of World War I:

"[The] Polar Bear Expedition saw some 5,500 soldiers sent to Archangel, Russia, near the Arctic Circle, in September 1918, just two months before the armistice would end the war. The expedition took shape after the 1917 Russian Revolution, when Russia signed a separate peace with Germany and pulled out of the war.

"At the urging of Winston Churchill - then in the British war office - President Woodrow Wilson...agreed to furnish troops to support the anti-Communist White Russian army. The Americans and some Canadians, who thought they were headed to France, were placed under British command."

US Senator Carl Levin was present for the screening of the documentary and told the audience, "There are lessons to be learned in history; there are lessons here....The lesson is we must be clear in our mission." [56]

There are lessons indeed. US troops fought on Russian soil and ended up on the losing side. This is not the lesson that Levin and the political and military leadership of NATO countries as a whole have learned and so risk repeating them on a far grander and more dangerous scale.

Notes:

1) National Security Presidential Directive 66    
   http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm 
2) NATO's, Pentagon's New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37104
3) Canada: Battle Line In East-West Conflict Over The Arctic
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/39795
4) Christian Science Monitor, June 11, 2009
5) Allied Air Component Command HQ Ramstein, April 9, 2009
6) U.S. Air Forces in Europe, June 8, 2009
7) Barents Observer, June 8, 2009
8) "Lapistan" inte bra sager Nato, Norrbottens-Kuriren via Wikipedia
9) Aftonbladet, June 5 by way of Stefan Lindgren
10) Barents Observer, June 8, 2009
11) Christian Science Monitor, June 11, 2009
12) Sveriges Radio via Barents Observer, June 8, 2009
13) The Local, June 10, 2009
14) The Local, June 8, 2009
15) From Agneta Norberg
16) Ibid
17) The Local, May 12, 2009
18) Defense News, May 17, 2009
19) NATO International, May 19, 2009
20) Agence France-Presse, June 3, 2009
21) Defense Professionals, May 13, 2009
22) Barents Observer, May 12, 2009
23) U.S. Air Forces in Europe, May 18, 2009
24) NewsRoom Finland, May 25, 2009
25) NATO International, Allied Command Transformation, May 29, 2009
26) Ibid
27) Helsinki Times, June 4, 2009
28) NATO International, June 9, 2009
29) Finnish Broadcasting Company, June 9, 2009
30) Barents Observer, June 2, 2009
31) NATO International, May 26, 2009
32) Jane's Defence Weekly, June 1, 2009
33) Norwegian Ministry of Defence, May 14, 2009
34) Ibid
35) NATO International, Allied Command Transformation, May 18, 2009
36) Norway Post, June 6, 2009
37) Defense News, May 28, 2009
38) Lithuania Ministry of National Defence, May 28, 2009
39) U.S. Naval Forces Europe, Navy NewsStand, June 6, 2009
40) Ibid
41) United States European Command, June 3, 2009
42) United Press International, June 9, 2009
43) U.S. Naval Forces Europe, June 11, 2009
44) Reuters, May 18, 2009
45) Warsaw Voice, June 3, 2009
46) Financial Times, May 21, 2009
47) Trend News Agency, June 3, 2009
48) Xinhua News Agency, June 12, 2009
49) Polish Radio, June 12, 2009
50) NATO International, June 11, 2009
51) Polish Radio, June 12, 2009
52) Interfax-Ukraine, May 29, 2009
53) BBC News, May 22, 2009
54) United States Navy, Navy Newsstand, May 22, 2009
55) Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, June 12, 2009
56) Hometown Life, May 28, 2009

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Obama administration seeks extraordinary military powers in Pakistan

Global Research, May 2, 2009

The Obama administration is increasingly treating its growing intervention in Pakistan as a separate counter-insurgency war for which it is demanding the same kind of extraordinary military powers obtained by the Bush administration in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This was the main message delivered by Pentagon officials on Capitol Hill over the last few days, together with increasingly dire warnings that without immediate and unconditional US military funding for Pakistan, the government could collapse.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress Thursday that unless it quickly approved some $400 million requested by the Pentagon for a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund the Pakistani military would run out of funding within weeks for its operations against insurgents in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and other areas of western Pakistan.

In his testimony, Gates also revealed that, even after the planned closure of the Guantanamo detention center, the US government may still imprison up to 100 of the inmates without charges or trials. The administration asked Congress for $50 million to build prison facilities in the US for detainees it claims are dangerous but cannot be tried, principally because the supposed evidence against them was extracted through torture.

The proposed $400 million in military aid for Pakistan is part of an $83.5 billion supplemental funding bill requested by Obama, the vast majority of which goes to pay for continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Gates said that the Pentagon was requesting that full control of the military aid be vested with Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of the US military’s Central Command. He claimed that the Pentagon needed “this unique authority for the unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan—for dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires wartime and peacetime capabilities.”

Some members of Congress have balked at the demand, which echoes the heavy-handed tactics of the Bush administration in demanding immediate passage of military funding for Iraq and Afghanistan with no strings attached.

As the Washington Post pointed out Friday: “Lawmakers in the House and Senate have voiced concerns about creating the new Pakistan military funding stream through the Pentagon. Traditionally such military aid flows through the State Department and is subject to Foreign Assistance Act restrictions.”

The $400 million is part of a $3 billion, five-year aid package that would see another $700 million in military assistance go to Pakistan in fiscal year 2010.

The military aid program envisions a major expansion of US training of Pakistani security forces, beyond the 70 US special operations troops whom Islamabad has quietly allowed to train elements of the Frontier Corps and Pakistani special forces units. Pakistani officers and troops would be trained outside the country. In addition, Washington would supply extensive new military hardware, including helicopters, night-vision goggles and small arms.

Under US law, the State Department is supposed to oversee military aid programs and ensure that they are carried out in accordance with US foreign policy and legal restrictions on such aid. An exception is made when the US is at war, the grounds claimed by the Bush administration in bypassing civilian authorities in implementing similar programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Post quoted Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell as saying that the use of similar arguments in Pakistan involved “walking a pretty fine line.” He continued: “This is not a war zone for the US military. But given the urgency of the situation, we need similar authorities in order to help Pakistan train and equip its troops for counterinsurgency operations ASAP.”

General Petraeus made the same point somewhat more forcefully in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee in which he warned of a potential government collapse in Pakistan.

He claimed that US “progress” in Iraq and Afghanistan had been achieved because “these funds are immediately available and commanders have been able to rapidly adjust to changing conditions on the ground.” He said that the same free hand for the military was needed in Pakistan, “where a growing insurgency threatens the country’s very existence and has a direct and deadly impact on US and coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.”

Privately, Petraeus has reportedly been telling members of congress and the administration that if the Pakistani military does not succeed in suppressing the insurgency in two weeks, the government may fall.

Citing anonymous sources who it says are “familiar with the discussions,” Fox News reports that Petraeus indicated that the US military was evaluating the Pakistani campaign against the militants in the northwest of the country “before determining the United States’ next course of action.”

The report added that Petraeus expressed the view that the Pakistani army could survive the fall of the government of President Ali Zardari and that the army, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is “superior” to the civilian government.

This statement echoed the position indicated by President Barack Obama at the Wednesday evening press conference marking his first 100 days in office. Obama said he was confident that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal would remain secure, “Primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.” He added, “We’ve got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation.”

In contrast, the American president described Zardari’s government as “very fragile” and lacking “the capacity to deliver basic services” or “gain the support and the loyalty of their people.”

Obama concluded by saying of Pakistan, “We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don't end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.”

When a reporter tried to ask whether that meant the US military could intervene to secure nuclear weapons, Obama refused to “engage in hypotheticals.”

The remarks by Obama and Petraeus suggest strongly that Washington is relying first and foremost on the Pentagon’s relationship with the Pakistani military, and that it could, in the event of the deepening of the present crisis, support the return of a military dictatorship. It has been less than nine months since the last military strongman, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, relinquished power to a civilian government after a decade of military rule.

This may also explain, at least in part, the determination of the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department to ensure that military aid flows through the military and not by way of normal State Department channels, which are subject to the Foreign Assistance Act. Among the act’s restrictions is a prohibition on granting military aid to “a country whose duly elected head of government was deposed by decree or military coup.”

Implicit in Obama’s statement about wanting “to respect their sovereignty, but...” is the threat of direct US military intervention.

It is becoming apparent that Obama, who owes his election in no small part to the opposition of broad layers of the US population to the militarist policies of the Bush administration, is not only continuing both of the wars initiated under Bush, but is preparing a third.

In an article entitled “Now, US Sees Pakistan as a Cause Distinct from Afghanistan,” the New York Times Friday noted that the original strategy advanced by the Obama administration was to carry out military attacks in the Pakistani border area to deny safe havens for insurgents and further a “surge” in Afghanistan that is to see a doubling of US troops over the next several months.

That strategy, the Times notes, has been “utterly scrambled by the Taliban offensive in western Pakistan.” Now Washington’s primary objective is “preventing further gains in Pakistan by an Islamic militant insurgency that has claimed territory just 60 miles from Islamabad.”

In an article published April 16, Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah of the New York Times provided an account of the intense class tensions that have fueled the insurgency. The forces described as the Taliban, they wrote, had succeeded in gaining control of the Swat Valley as the result of a “class revolt” stemming from “profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants.”

According to this report, the Islamist militants organized and armed the landless peasants in a campaign to drive out the region’s wealthy landlords, who also were the government officials and leaders of the established political parties. In addition to imposing Islamic law over Swat, a region of 1.3 million people, the Islamists carried out a measure of “economic redistribution.”

The Times quoted an unnamed senior Pakistani official as saying, “This was a bloody revolution in Swat. I wouldn’t be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan.”

The Obama administration is now intervening to prop up that “established order” of feudal land relations, vast social inequality and military domination over the government. This will involve the suppression of not merely a handful of “terrorists,” but an insurgency with broad-based popular support, which is fueled in large measure by US military attacks on civilians on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Having intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003 with the aim of asserting American hegemony over the strategically vital and oil-rich regions of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, American imperialism has succeeded only in spreading instability and creating the conditions for new and even more bloody wars.