News & Analysis
West Sponsors Afghan Civil War
The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former Afghan president, who was trying to woo the Taliban makes peace talks even less likely ... Rabbani's assassination is so dangerous precisely because it sharpens these fears of minority communities. The northern forces never disarmed, and they've probably begun rebuilding their strength to prepare for the worst-case scenario. They would find willing sponsors ... In short, a civil war is a distinct possibility. It would further destabilise Pakistan's fragile borderlands, and extinguish all hope of nation-building in Afghanistan. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Despite the West's best efforts, time is running out for peace in Afghanistan.
Free-Market Analysis: In numerous articles over the past year-and-a-half, we've written that the end-game for the Afghanistan war – as cynical as it may be – is civil war. Western leaders will deny this, but what is obviously being planned is a de facto portioning of Afghanistan.
This is exactly how the war the British waged against the Afghan Pashtuns finished 100 years ago. The British ended up with the Northern half of Afghanistan and effectively ceded the rest to the "stiff-necked" Pashtun tribe (which today numbers some 25 million). History, as usual, repeats itself.
In this article, we'll review why the cynical civil war solution is being implemented by NATO and the Americans and also how it is being engineered within the context of maximum deniability. There are several subdominant social themes at play here.
It won't do for the US to be seen as fomenting civil war in Afghanistan, but the writer of this article, Shashank Joshi – an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London – is willing to provide us with more clarity than the American press. He doesn't offer a historical background, it's true, but he does end up at the obvious conclusion. Here's some more from the article:
Afghanistan is lurching towards a civil war ... If Nato's strategy in Afghanistan seems familiar, that may be because it increasingly seems borrowed from the Black Knight of Monty Python fame, who, after losing both arms, insists that "it's just a flesh wound".
When Afghan insurgents laid waste to government buildings in Kabul last week, the US ambassador explained, perhaps in case we'd misunderstood the 24-hour siege, that "this really is not a very big deal". A day earlier he'd lamented that "the biggest problem in Kabul is traffic". Apparently not. A week on, someone has blown up Afghanistan's former president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, in the heart of the capital. This is a big deal. It shatters the idea that our enemies are on the ropes, and pushes the country closer to civil war ...
If the Afghan government fails to reform itself, and negotiations lead nowhere, then the alternative is a gradual disintegration of the country. When Monty Python's Black Knight is altogether limbless, he concedes to Arthur, "we'll call it a draw". An Afghan draw would suit us. But our failure to lay the groundwork for this means that we're just as likely to wind up in stalemate.
Good, Joshi. You have the reportorial courage to mention the "C" word – as in civil war. Articles in the US are filled with explanations about how the US and NATO are withdrawing in an orderly fashion from Afghanistan and leaving behind military and civilian security forces to fill the power vacuum. We've never understood how that would work. The same approach was tried in Viet Nam, with disastrous results.
Joshi provides us with a reality check that moves well beyond the mainstream Afghan meme as normally enunciated by the controlled press of the Anglosphere. Of course, Joshi's article is appearing in a mainstream publication. But perhaps events are getting so far out of hand that the Anglosphere powers-that-be, which have waged this genocidal war, have decided to open up the controlled media to a certain amount of plain speaking.
The shooting of Rabbani is indeed a big deal. As Joshi reports, he chaired the High Peace Council that was supposed to negotiate a peace deal directly with senior Taliban figures. We also learn from Joshi that Rabbani was an odd choice for his position, "a blood-soaked Tajik warlord, who, alongside Afghanistan's other minorities, had spent the 1990s battling the mostly Pashtun Taliban in a brutal civil war. Rabbani eventually led this Northern Alliance to victory in 2001, helped along by the US Air Force and CIA paramilitaries on horseback."
Rabbani's appointment was obviously based on pragmatism. America's puppet president, Hamid Karzai, has limited options when it comes to a peace deal. The Northern Alliance he depends on (even though he himself is Pashtun) is not much more keen on peace talks than the Taliban.
In order to initiate the talks, Karzai eventually fired spy chief Amrullah Saleh who, Joshi reports, continues to insist that "there must not be a deal with the Taliban. Ever." Along with some others based in Panjshir Valley in northern Afghanistan, Saleh has emerged as a "political force against reconciliation, drawing crowds of thousands with his denunciations of the Taliban as Pakistani stooges."
Lines are being drawn. Those non-Pashtun ethnic tribes that make up about half of the population of Afghanistan will remain armed and reluctant to conclude any kind of "peace" with the Pashtun Taliban. The Taliban themselves, convinced they are on the verge of victory, want little to do with a peace treaty either.
To his credit, Joshi sums up the situation bluntly and succinctly: "We have a self-serving oligarchy in Kabul, a jihad-addicted Pakistani military across the border, and a political strategy that shows no understanding of our terrible bargaining position ..."
Both the US and the Taliban have opted for killing each other's interlocutors, hardly a sound basis for diplomacy. The Americans argue that an aggressive campaign of night raids and assassinations allows us to negotiate from strength. In reality, it means that pragmatic older insurgents are replaced by ever-more radical diehards – those who may well have killed Rabbani.
The Northern Alliance has no illusions that it can topple the Taliban or conquer the Pashtuns that have been living in the same place for thousands of years. At the same time, the Pashtuns shall not again – as they did in the late 1990s – take over all of Afghanistan. Historically, there has been an uneasy balance of power between these two forces.
Unfortunately, the Anglosphere power elite that has sponsored various wars against the Pashtuns has no vested interest in leaving Afghanistan alone. The war, in our view, was started to pacify the Pashtuns and thus extend dominance over Afghanistan preparatory to initiating one-world government.
Having been thwarted once again in their efforts to conquer Afghanistan, the great banking families of the City of London will settle for a corrosive civil war that they hope will weaken the Pashtuns and further erode their culture of civility and their reflexive militarism.
To this end, the Anglosphere intends to put maximum pressure on Pakistan as well, hoping to sow discord between the Punjabi sponsors of the war and their Pashtun/Taliban troops. Western powers-that-be also intend to drag India and Russia directly into the conflict, hoping that these two nation-states will further confuse the issue and limit the resurgence of Pashtun/Taliban power and Punjabi/Pakistani influence.
NATO allies and the Pentagon will continue to insist that the plan to create a military and civilian security force from Northern Alliance ethnicities will allow Afghanistan to continue to function as one logistical entity. Nothing could be further from the truth; Afghanistan has already been partitioned and it is only a matter of time until the reality corresponds to the "facts on the ground."
It would be most surprising if the current Afghan war does not resolve itself with a further, bloody civil war that pits the Northern Alliance and the remnants of NATO against the Pashtuns and an increasingly destabilized Pakistan. It is a most cynical and even genocidal outcome. But then again, despite protests otherwise, the Afghan war was never about revenge for 9/11 or even about nation-building. It was a war to advance the one-world ambitions of the Anglosphere power elite.
Conclusion: Having been thwarted again, the City of London will be merciless in defeat. The Afghans will pay. That bloody, tortured, irradiated land will not receive a moment's peace. This is the fate that the Anglosphere elites have in mind for the Pashtuns, to punish them for their continued resistance. The Pashtuns have doubtless slowed the rush to one-world government but the price, apparently, shall be one of continued death and despair.
Posted by RR on 09/23/11 11:31 AM
They usually have a lot of time to write.
Posted by rossbcan on 09/23/11 09:45 AM
"negotiate a peace deal directly with senior Taliban figures"
Never (cannot) work. "Deals" are invariably based on a snapshot in time of the relative powers and degree of perceived support of the "dealmakers" (balance of power), invariably trading off the rights and responsibilities (servitude, turf) of parties whom are not party to the "deal". Thus, by blowback of those affected, without their consent, balance of power due to not considering (and therefore threatening) the interests of non contracting powers is inherently unstable.
Which is WHY, we once had the "rule of law" balancing the power (right to choose life) of EVERYONE and therefore eliminating conflict (keeping the peace), resulting in stability of civilization.
Posted by rossbcan on 09/23/11 08:57 AM
"conflicts that the British had in Afghanistan as being related to an implementation of a NWO... "
You mistake the identity of the players with the common goal of slavers (control freaks) and their "systems", for all of history. NWO is just that barbarians have consolidated power (via mechanism of fiat, central banks, illegal taxation, subverted education and media) to the point that, rather than accomplished regional servitude, they are aiming for planetary servitude, by connecting regions under common "control systems" and turning our treasonous democratically elected "leaders" into "regents" in the hoped for elite planetary fiefdom.
To do so, there can be "nowhere left, to run, to hide". As DB has endlessly proven, the Pashtuns and other "non-western" viewpoints and ways of social / economic organizations, especially without central banks "must go", as must freedom (ability to choose) in general be destroyed.
Given that the basic survival choice for individuals and groups (mankind) is "flight versus fight", when the "flight" option is significantly eliminated, that leaves "fight".
Elites, by attempting to control our choices are, by definition, a general survival threat:
Click to view link
Elites have taken on all of mankind in their psychopathic and futile "king of the hill game". Mankind is a survivor and ALWAYS wakes up and deals with their predators when survival EQUALS freedom is threatened.
Elites have already lost. It is just an unknown matter of time until they cry "uncle" and unknown, but exponentially increasing social / economic damage due to blowback and, the reparations that are unknown. History is VERY CLEAR on matters such as this.
As an enlightened Texan would state: "You don't mess with humanity".
Posted by rossbcan on 09/23/11 08:28 AM
"time is running out for peace"
It is not time that is running out, it is ability to survive by being peaceful that is running out. Time just measures the process, as the REAL factors integrate to the intolerance of "total war".
Civilization is "the voluntary rules by which we cooperate / trade for MUTUAL self-interest". No voluntary consent EQUALS no civilization.
Remove MUTUAL and play the unwinnable "king of the hill game" (the "king" can be selfish, preying on all others, aligning ALL others in common survival interest to unseat the king, and emboldening foolish others to be the new king, starting a new game) and, peace is IMPOSSIBLE. This is "rule of man", destroyer of civilizations, for all of known history.
It is always a sociopathic minority who play the game, peaceful, intelligent people want no part of the game and just want to be left alone, to contribute to civilization and survive by peacefully trading with their fellows, as best they can and attempt to avoid being "collateral damage".
But, the sociopaths, by refusing to honestly trade (be civilized) do not produce anything and must engage in forceful / fraudulent, initiate aggression crimes (predations) on the productive to acquire the resources required for their sorry existence plus, to pay for the "apparatus of force" required to prey.
This means the will of the productive "to be left alone" must be violated (raped and pillaged), by states, in general which, whether they want to or not pulls the productive into the game out of pure self-defense.
Once the productive are pulled into the game, no matter how they choose to oppose (and, they MUST oppose, a survival requirement), either by passive resistance (deny proceeds of crime) or active resistance, their lives and resources (time and energy) are diverted from productivity, collapsing civilization by the real forces proven by "Mathematics of Rule":
Click to view link
Posted by RR on 09/23/11 01:36 AM
Part of the problem is misinformation and part of the problem is some people are clearly dumb. Real problem is some people are paid to misinform !
Posted by TimurTheLame on 09/22/11 07:50 PM
Good point on Rhodes but I still cannot agree that all minor conflagrations are part of THE big plan. I think that one must allow that certain belligerent actions can be attributed to 'revanchism' as in Mussolini's Ethiopian adventure or more understandable reasons that boil down to issues of commerce.
I would be interested in how you would tie Alexander the Great into what I understand to be something hatched only some 300 years ago. Why start there? Surely Philip of Macedon would have influenced his spawn. Did Peking Man look at the horizon with designs in mind? Where and when was point zero?
Posted by speedygonzales on 09/22/11 07:22 PM
To be honest with you, the Boer wars and World Wars has many things connected. It was Cecil Rhodes and the round table idea control Africa from Cape to Cairo. There were Boers and there was German teritor in Africa in the way. Plan was achieved. NWO goes back to Alexander the Great and Roman Empire.
Posted by TimurTheLame on 09/22/11 11:53 AM
" When did the one world conspiracy start... "
Don't dig yourselves into a hole. Am I to assume from your response that every war that has taken place in the last 300 years is related to implementing the NWO? Chaco war perhaps, Zulu wars? Balkan wars. War of 1812? Am I also to then assume that raw commerce has no place in declaring wars?
Reply from The Daily Bell
No hole to dig. There is plenty of evidence, hidden or not, that the great banking families involved with NWO have been in high leadership positions in the Anglosphere for far more than a century. One can make a considered argument that the colonial period of creating and consolidating nation-states was a precursor to a further consolidation. The plan for the NWO apparently has been on the "agenda" for a very long time ...
Posted by SoCal fellow on 09/22/11 11:44 AM
"... The Pashtuns have doubtless slowed the rush to one-world government but the price, apparently, shall be one of continued death and despair... "
Seems plausible. Very sad.
May the Good Lord punish the aggressors and evildoers in the hereafter. May the U.S. government's coffers run dry soon so as to stop feeding the aggressors and evildoers.
Posted by Levantine on 09/22/11 11:38 AM
Posted by RR on 09/22/11 10:59 AM
Cash crop in a free market.
Click to view link
Posted by TimurTheLame on 09/22/11 09:12 AM
I do not see the historical conflicts that the British had in Afghanistan as being related to an implementation of a NWO which arguably could have only been considered in earnest after the two world wars of the previous century.
They hadn't even eradicated the various monarchies yet, which surely had to be the first step.
So coincidence, yes. More like good old empire building. Boer war? try diamonds. Zulu wars same. Peninsular Wars, Crimea, Falklands NWO? Face it, sometimes Tommy Atkins just likes to march towards the sound of gunfire. His superiors to the smell of treasure or the security in establishing a balance of power.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Really, TimurTheLane? When exactly did the one world conspiracy start? Or perhaps you believe it never did. Why be coy? Or play dumb.
Posted by TimurTheLame on 09/22/11 07:43 AM
I disagree with the contention that the war in Afghanistan is part of a pacification of the Pashtuns 'preparatory to initiating one world government'.
Why not invade New Guinea also to pacify the cannibals there?
Surely there are bigger fish to fry in the NWO timetable. In my opinion it appears to be some geo-political move of which varied speculation exists. A simple look at the map of the region would support any such theory.
The complexities involved in this region , past, present and future make it difficult for anyone to draw a definitive conclusion on what either side is thinking, not even to mention the proximity of Pakistan.
In your profile of Karzai you omitted his past association with the CIA, strong rumors of an association with Unocal (now Chevron) and his rejection of an international proposal to eradicate poppy production ( which was already then nearly eradicated possibly to the chagrin of CIA book-keepers).
In fact your profile made him appear to be something of a legitimate leader. The minute facts from even a source such as wikipedia argue differently though obviously do not state so explicitly.
I suspect that the PTB have found themselves with the mother of all tar-babies. All their tried and true tricks of conquest namely bribery, assassination, shock and awe demonstrations, divide and conquer strategies have failed and they are simply out of tricks.
People forget that the Soviet Army, with a common border and no press scrutiny threw everything they could at the situation, caused more than a million deaths and still had to flee with a bloody nose after 11 years. Even then they were not allowed to leave without paying the final 'tribute' before crossing the border.
For the west to sponsor a civil war in an area that has known nothing but civil wars, large and small, could only be seen as a 'hail mary' pass. I suggest that they have met a truly un-pacifiable people and their conquest manual does not have a chapter on how to deal with this contingency. Possibly only a redirect to the 'Nuclear Option'.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Well, as we have predicted exactly this scenario for some time, we don't see the rest of our analysis as flawed. Afghanistan and Pakistan are CENTRAL to a new world order. It is too many people in to critical a region to ignore. And why then have the Brits tried twice, maybe three times, to subjugate the Pashtuns? Just coincidence?