|
Wednesday, September 06, 2006 Sarah Meyer articles and researches published by the BRussells Tribunal. |
“In a word, we are at
the beginning, not the end, of a profound crisis in the US’ relations with NATO.”
1. The PNAC
and NATO Coven
2. NATO and Europe
3. NATO Goes Global
4. NATO, Israel and Mediterranean Partners
5. NATO in Lebanon?
6. The Bathtub is Overflowing
7. The Bathtub is Draining Out
8. Overstretched NATO in ‘Asscrackistan’
9. NATO and Secret Armies
Footnotes
One of the key Project of the New American Century (PNAC)1
documents is Building America’s Defenses. The thrust of the large section, Building Today’s Armed
Services,2
is about the “bathtub of unreadiness.”3
The PNAC document expresses the need to build up all branches of the armed forces in order to obtain “long
term political or regime change,4
global expansion and
security, for which a huge extended budget is required as the “American security perimeter
expands.” 5
This ‘bathtub of unreadiness’ includes NATO.
“Further, improvements should be made to existing air bases in new and potential NATO countries to allow
for rapid deployments, contingency exercises, and extended initial operations in times of crisis. … Some of
the cost could be covered, it is suggested, by the host nation or NATO.”6
“Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring mission – worthy of a constant allocation
of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn.”7
NATO’s 'transformation',
a favoured word in PNAC documents - and used frequently by Rumsfeld and his coven - was already taking place
as early as 1996.
The U.S. Committee on Nato was founded in that year by Bruce Jackson and Greg Craig. Originally, it was
called ‘The U.S. Committee to Expand NATO’. After its disbandment in 2003, it became the
‘Project on Transitional Democracies’ – in the same office. In 2003-04, ‘The Project on Transitional
Democracy’ received
6 grants 8
totalling £229,400.
Bruce Jackson is still in his office. His revolving door swings around the Defense Department, Lehman
Brothers, various ‘think tanks,’ and ‘non-profit’ affiliations. From 1993 – 2002, he was the Vice President
for Strategy and Planning at
Lockheed Martin.
The lobbyist,
Randy Scheunemann, another PNACer, was also still (2003) in this office. In 2001, he was a consultant on
Iraq policy in Rumsfeld’s office, and has been on various congressional committees. He was, for a year,
president of Mercury, who handled Lockheed Martin and various gun-related businesses / lobbies.
Julie Finley was also a founding member who was still in this office in 2003. All three have been
involved with the
Committee for the Liberation (sic) of Iraq. “People in the White House said, ‘We need you to do for Iraq
what you did for NATO'", Jackson said.
Connections with the U.S. Committee on NATO included PNACers Paul Wolfovitz, Richard Perle, Gary Schmitt and Robert Kagan. Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland. Nuland is an accomplished woman. At present, she is the US Ambassador to NATO. From 2000 - 2003, she was a foreign policy advisor to Cheney. Prior to this, she was internationally active.
The Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland joined NATO in 1999.
On the 29th of March 2004,
seven countries became members of NATO: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia. The Lithuanian Prime Minister said, “… we’ve been preparing for a decade.” NATO, with 2.8 million
personnel, was thus adding 200,000 more ‘to fight terrorism.’ New NATO members were in Kosovo, Iraq and
Afghanistan. Romania, for example, had 800 troops in Iraq.
The
US Senate was concerned about a provision which would allow America to launch an attack without Romania’s
knowledge or permission. General Smith said that "in the future, all NATO bases can be used in case of a
(military) conflict, based on an Alliance decision," but underlined that Romania will be able to express its
position, ‘as a sovereign nation and NATO member with full rights.’ The U.S. uses four bases in Romania.
Romania has been rumoured to be the recipient of ‘extraordinary rendition’ – Pentagon soft-porn for
kidnapping / human trafficking.
In mid-February 2006,
Slovenian military instructors left for Iraq to partake in a NATO mission, training Iraqi security
officers. This government decision provoked controversy.
Also in February 2006,
Macedonia, Albania and Croatia said they hoped to become part of NATO by 2008. Pennsylvania’s ex-US
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who supported the death penalty and duct tape in an emergency, has
been named as a NATO
consultant for the Albanian government.
In Bulgaria, the U.S. military will be able to use three Bulgarian bases, as well as another storage
facility, for ten years. There is double-speak in the announcement said to be made by the Dutch Secretary
General of NATO,
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. A Bulgarian newspaper reported (04.06) that
nuclear weapons would not be deployed in Bulgaria, but the S.G of NATO said that NATO members would meet
to discuss the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons on Bulgaria's territory in the case of a major
crisis. (SM italics).
Montenegro, a country of 650,000 people, has asked for NATO ‘Partner for Peace’ (PFP) membership.
Polls indicate that
Finland is strongly opposed to joining NATO.
Russia found the expansion ‘offensive.’
France has also objected.
Gabriel Kolko wrote in an important article, American Foreign Policy and the Future of Nato, that the US’ "ambitious agenda" was outlined by the US ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland. The interview appeared in the Financial Times (24.01.06). “The US wants a ‘globally deployable military force’ that will operate everywhere – from Africa to the Middle East and beyond. It will include Japan and Australia as well as the NATO nations. … ‘It’s a totally different animal,’ to quote her, ‘whose ultimate role will be subject to US desires and adventures.’ Ms. Nuland’s emphasis reiterates the NATO policy expressed in the Quadrennial Defense Review:
“Achieving the vision set out in this Report will only be possible by maintaining and adapting the United States’ enduring alliances. Alliances are clearly one of the nation’s greatest sources of strength. Over the past four years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and U.S. bilateral alliances with Australia, Japan, Korea and other nations have adapted to retain their vitality and relevance in the face of new threats to international security. These alliances make manifest the strategic solidarity of free democratic states, promote shared values and facilitate the sharing of military and security burdens around the world. The United States places great value on its unique relationships with the United Kingdom and Australia, whose forces stand with the U.S. military in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other operations. These close military relations are models for the breadth and depth of cooperation that the United States seeks to foster with other allies and partners around the world. Implementation of the QDR’s agenda will serve to reinforce these enduring links.”
With the US’s ex-enemies in
Eastern Europe now under the US / NATO wing, members
further afield are being courted. The task is “going from Europe to global.” Lord Robertson, for example,
started leaning on Azerbaijan as early as 2001.
In 2005,
Kazakhstan and NATO planned to sign an agreement. Bush does not appear to have problems dealing with
government leaders from Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan (accused of pocketing $75m. in bribes) despite the
corruption.
In February ’06, it was announced that
Georgia would become a NATO member in 2008.
In August ’06, the President of
Ukraine continued his country’s drive toward the EU and NATO. Ukrainians protested. Nevertheless, on the
29th of August, a US armed forces delegation arrived in Sebastopol to discuss the
‘NATO Active Endeavor’ anti-terrorist operation which will take place in the Mediterranean. Ukraine, the
Russian Federation, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia will participate alongside NATO member
states. It was decided that NATO would
double its financing.
And a NATO official saw “Hope for Ties with
Uzbekistan.”
Whilst
Moldova is not going to join NATO, it is going to introduce NATO standards during the restructuring of
the armed forces . The country did not unanimously support this plan.
In Iraq, 140 officers, who had been supervised by 100 NATO trainers from ‘more than 10 countries,’
graduated and will join Iraq’s new army. Germany, the Netherlands and the US were the main contributors. The
Czech government paid a $64,000 subsidy and gave five Czech military instructors to be part of that
mission.
In early August ’06, Russia was still
questioning NATO enlargement.
NATO, ISRAEL and MEDITERRANEAN PARTNERS
At a February
NATO meeting in Sicily, AP reported that the United States and other NATO nations were “building ties
with friendly nations in North Africa and the Middle East.” This meeting on counterterrorism was in
cooperation with NATO's "Mediterranean partners"— Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and
Mauritania.
On the 3rd of March ’06, focus-fen reported: “US Congressmen Propose Israel to Be Accepted in NATO.”
By June, Jordan had offered to host a
Middle East NATO training centre for the Mediterranean partners.
The Sunday Times said that Maj. General Tuttleman was showing off an
AWACS plane in Israel, suggesting that NATO may help US air strikes on Iran. Israel’s special forces,
noted the Sunday Times, ‘are said to be operating inside Iran in an urgent attempt to locate the country’s
secret uranium enrichment sites.’ “We found several suspected sites last year but there must be more,” an
Israeli intelligence source said. ‘They are operating from a base in northern Iraq, guarded by Israeli
soldiers with the approval of the Americans, according to Israeli sources.’
Tmc.net (17.05.06) announced
NATO TO SET UP MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE. ‘Long-range missile interceptor and related transmitters
will allow the United States to monitor a larger area and will help protect its allies and friends in Europe
from threats emanating from Iran,” Lt. Gen. Obering said. … “Japan, Israel and the United Kingdom are the
U.S.' principal partners in missile defense cooperation. … Japanese investment, including in joint projects
with the United States, has exceeded $1 billion.”
Barzilai wrote: “the agreement for Israel’s participation in the NATO
cataloguing system was signed in June, after a year of negotiations. Israel is currently an associate
member in the system and will obtain full membership within three years.” Israel will thus have access to the
uniform framework of inventory and equipment use in all NATO member states.
Concomitant with the NATO activity in Africa is the
U.S. Central Command’s interest in filling up the bathtub in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and other
African countries. “In 2005, the US Defense Department tabled a new plan to reorganize its military bases
with initial ideas to add more than 10 frontier operation bases or establishments and prepare to transfer
most of its servicemen stationed in Europe to Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and other African nations.”
Hossein Alai thought there
were
plots underway to deploy NATO troops there. The
U.S. pushed for a NATO force in Lebanon. There were conflicting responses to the American initiative.
News 24 reported that “NATO
reacted cautiously to US/ Israeli calls, … while diplomats said the military alliance was already hugely
stretched, notably in Afghanistan.” But General James Jones, the NATO military commander, said NATO “would be
up to the job.” Ken Silverstein asked a potent question in an excellent Harper’s article, “Could U.S.
Troops End Up In Lebanon?” Read
here.
Jacques Chirac responded: "As far as France is concerned, it is not NATO's mission to put together such a
force. Whether we like it or not, NATO is perceived as the armed wing of the West in these regions, and as a
result, in terms of image, NATO is not intended for this."
Meanwhile, in Canada in July, NATO soldiers (Canada, UK, Belgium, Denmark, France & Germany) were learning
about
chemical and nuclear response tactics.
Not content with egregious errors in Lebanon, Israel has been looking towards Iran. On the 24th of August,
‘high ranking Israeli officials’ said that “Israel … may have to
go it alone.” Is that ‘alone’ as in Lebanon, where Israel had financial support from as well as the use
of
illegal US weapons?
With reference to the disaster in Lebanon, Robert Fisk, with characteristic wryness, notes: "No
wonder the UN can't find volunteers … The Iraq fiasco - and the growing débâcle in Afghanistan has
drained the will of NATO nations to commit troops to peacekeeping operations, certainly for missions which
may involve confrontations and violence with Muslims.”
Russia was even more offended, and conducted
war games.
Who is benefiting from this
NATO expansion?
James Petras wrote (1997): “The U.S. Congressional Budget Office predicts total cost of NATO enlargement
at about $125 billion over 13 years with Washington paying only $19 billion. That means Eastern and Western
Europe will have to pay 85 percent of the cost, or $106 billion. … The new members of NATO in East Europe
will have to increase their military spending to be on the same footing with their Western partners. U.S.
arms manufacturers are the biggest supporters of NATO expansion and will be the principle economic
beneficiaries.” (SM emphasis)
NATO spent some
US$676 billion on defence during the financial year 2005 - 2006. The amount that each country’s
expenditure should be according to their GNP (2004) can be seen
here.
What is the sting in the tail? Why are countries rushing to join this new global USATO? Aid. The USAID
Administrator and Vice Administrator are appointed by the President.
Randall Tobias is the current Administrator. After the army, he joined and became the CEO of AT & T,
following which he was the CEO of
Eli Lilly and Co. For the USAID budget, see
here and then ‘google’ a country of your interest.
Romania, for example, received $25m. through a ‘Public–Private Partnership’ - USAID, GMF and the Mott
Foundation. Charles Stewart Mott, a GM Motors pioneer, founded the Mott F. in 1926, which now has assets of
$2.5b. William S. White is the present CEO. The Romanian president attended a
GMF (German Marshall Fund) dinner in July, saying that he was “committed to the transformation of NATO”
whilst simultaneously “urging a boost in American investment in Romania.” The GMF was founded in 1972 and has
six European offices. The lobbyist
Marc Leland is one of the co-chairmen. He is also Director of the Noble Corporation in Texas, which deals
in oil and gas drilling and exploration. Guido Goldman of Harvard University and CEO of the Park Avenue
finance company First Spring, shares this post.
David Ignatius, the spy-intrigue author and associate editor / columnist of The Washington Post,
also sits on the GMF Board.
When high ranking Romanian officials asked what kind of military planes
Romania should buy to "be of help" to NATO, ‘General Smith said the decision was to be made by the chief
of staff and political leaders.’
“Phantom aid” is slowly being revealed. … Ann Jones wrote an excellent article for TomDispatch (27.08.06).
Amongst many nuggets: “70 percent of U.S. aid is contingent upon the recipient spending it on American stuff,
including especially American-made armaments. The upshot is that 86 cents of every dollar of U.S. aid is
phantom aid. … In 2001, Andrew Natsios, then head of USAID, cited foreign aid as "a key foreign policy
instrument" designed to help other countries "become better markets for U.S. exports." Read her article
here.
“New members will spend a combined
$4 billion a year to meet NATO standards,” boosting sales for companies - including Lockheed Martin
Corp., the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor, and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., Europe's biggest
aerospace company,” according to Bloomberg (29.03.04). A newly revised 2006 account would see a likely
increase in this figure.
"This is the most exciting time in the defence and security market in more than 30 years,” said Tim Page,
president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries. Excellent research by Jorge Barrera
for the Ottowa Times and published on Corpwatch (20.08.06), can be read
here.
The two ‘behemoths’ that “anchor Ottowa’s defense and security sector” are:
• Lockheed Martin
• General Dynamics
“Canada's military is currently a slave to the whims and needs of the U.S. military; the Canadian military buys most of its supplies from the U.S.,” said P. Tonkin of Tonkin Aerospace.
• $5.4 million worth of
ammunition from the U.S. through a non-competitive contract.
• $23.8 million worth of aircraft parts and $6.7 million in guided missiles.
Ottowa’s companies ‘in for the kill’ include:
• ACE Security Laminates
• DEW engineering
• Idokorro
Canada also recently purchased
five
Skylarks “and the army has an option to buy five more … The military refused to say how much each unit
costs because details of the contract with the Canadian supplier for Elbit Systems Ltd. of Israel has
yet to be finalized. Seven other NATO countries are already using the Skylark… (Canada) has yet to acquire
any of the bigger American UAVs, such the Global Hawk or Predator, which can be armed with missiles.”
In August ’06, the
Netherlands bought EUR 25M in Australian Bushmaster IMVs for Afghanistan.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts can be received freely on the internet. For a deluge of US
Department of Defense (DoD) contracts see
here.9
For contracts relating to NATO, see
here. The UK charges over £200 for their contract information. Following is a spatter of information.
In the U.K, a
£1.15bn contract was agreed for NATO redevelopment, noted the Watford Observer (04.08.06). The contract
was awarded to Eastbury Park Ltd, a joint venture between Carillion Defence and HSBC Infrastructure Fund
Management Limited.
The MoD bought two
£30m US drones to fight the Taliban, said the Telegraph (28.08.06). These Predator drones (UAVs), made by
General Atomics, carry four Hellfire missiles, made by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin gets
$105 from each U.S. Taxpayer and $228 from each U.S. household to support their weapons building
endeavors.
Some other UK / NATO related contracts:
Raytheon Battlefield Target Identification Device (July ’06);
Atkins Defense Systems: NATO submarine rescue service.
The financial result was predictable.
Profits in the weapons manufacturing department have soared whilst their costs have doubled since 9/11.
The Ledger revealed in February ’06 that there was a “A US Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil
Companies.” Now, The Institute for Policy Studies has recently released a report,
Executive Excess, which highlights the profits made by oil and defense CEOs since 2001. $984m is the
total made by 34 defense CEOs, for example, since 9/11. Gross obscenity of the Pop Chart is the $200m
pocketed by George David of United Technologies, who make Pratt and Whitney jet engines and Sikorsky
helicopters. In 2005, he earned $31.9m. Other elite defense contractors include: Boeing, Halliburton, Oshkosh
Truck, Textron, Computer Sciences, URS, Health Net, Armour Holding and General Dynamics. In the oil world,
last year’s chief executives earned $512m, with the top prize going to W. Greeley of Valero Energy Corp.
Other oil companies mentioned are: Occidental Petroleum, Exxon Mobile, Marathon Oil, EOG Resources, XTO
Energy, Conoco Phillips, Halliburton, Amerada Hess and Apache Corp.10
The war in Afghanistan is about corporate power, profit and control of energy resources, which are the
‘special interests’ of the U.S. government. U.S.-ruled NATO thus has a role to play in
energy security.
Martin Walker of UPI wrote (13.10.05):
NATO Means Business To Protect Pipelines. “NATO's top military commander is seeking an important new
security role for private industry and business leaders as part of a new security strategy that will focus on
the economic vulnerabilities of the 26-country alliance. Two immediate and priority projects for NATO
officials to develop with private industry are to secure the pipelines bringing Russian oil and gas to Europe
against terrorist attacks and to secure ports and merchant shipping, the alliance Supreme Commander, Gen.
James Jones of the U.S. Marine Corps said Wednesday. … "the future is that the alliance will continue to
grow, beyond the current 26 members …"
Oil and Gas in Afghanistan + map &
CIA 01.03.Oil Map of Iraq.11
There are
financial shortfalls. "Low European defense budgets are a brake on our transformation,” said Apathurai,
NATO’s spokesperson.
In February ’06, the United States was pushing the NATO allies to
increase their defense spending and to modernize their forces so they could “join the U.S. military in
more security and counterterrorism missions beyond NATO borders.”
Money was limited. The new members'
combined defense budget (2004) of “about $4 billion a year, including $1.4 billion for Romania, is about
the same size as Poland's alone and less than 1 percent of total defense spending by current NATO members.
Romania, the largest of the new NATO countries, has already upgraded 90 Soviet-made fighters to NATO
standards under a $500 million contract with Israel's Elbit Industries. It is upgrading dozens of
helicopters, and buying used carrier planes from the U.S. Navy and warships from the British navy.”
‘Are States Paying Too High a Price for Joining NATO?’ asked focus-fen in July.12
“Croatia was surprised to receive from the NATO Secretary General’s office a list of additional requirements
it had to fulfill in order to join the Alliance together with Albania and Macedonia in 2008. NATO wanted
Croatian armed forces to send 6,000 militaries in peacekeeping operations around the world. The document even
mentioned a strategy according to which the new members of the Alliance should make up 40% of the structure
of current peacekeeping missions and 8% of the total number of militaries which should immediately be sent to
crisis regions.”
It has also been reported that NATO officials have asked the
Czech air force to provide Russian-made Mi-17 Hip helicopters to help the 4,000 British troops in Helmand
who are being seriously hampered by a lack of transport helicopters, such as Chinooks.
The U.S. and NATO (01.09.06) want more military aid from
Norway, but Norway has staffing problems, and most people in the country are against military actions.
There are some interesting
criticisms in the U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection (05.06):
“NATO should revisit its
funding policy, which penalizes contributing nations by forcing them to pay for their participation. The use
of trust funds is also a growing failure. NATO has committed the political capital of the Alliance and all 26
nations represented to train Iraqi officers. It is now prepared to squander that capital by failing to fund
the commitment. …
NATO should revisit its funding policy, which penalizes contributing nations by forcing them to pay for their
participation. The use of trust funds is also a growing failure. NATO has committed the political capital of
the Alliance and all 26 nations represented to train Iraqi officers. It is now prepared to squander that
capital by failing to fund the commitment.”
OVERSTRETCHED NATO IN ‘ASSCRACKISTAN:’13
On the 19th of December 2005,
the US Defense Department announced that there would be a
US troop withdrawal of 2,500, in Afghanistan, “largely because of the increased role NATO is taking in
providing security in the country.” Congress
confirmed this in June, no questions asked.
In other words, the U.S. is using NATO not only as a further weapons windfall, but also as an extension of
their armed forces.
But G. Witte of The Washington Post (03.01.06) swallowed the
government spin without question. “The United States says that its shifting approach complements
Afghanistan's evolution into a self-sustaining democracy.”
Vance Serchuk, of the American Enterprise Institute asked: “Why has the Bush administration embraced a
military strategy for southern Afghanistan that is so dependant on fickle partners? The current mess is a
predictable consequence of the Pentagon's determination to have NATO assume more responsibility in
Afghanistan and as fast as possible. And it's a portent of even bigger problems to come.”
The NATO merry-go-round in Afghanistan, driven by America’s announced withdrawal of 2,500 - 4,000 (of 19,500)
troops in the spring of 2006, went into overdrive. See Afghanistan: The NATO Quagmire,
here. For resource material on NATO in Afghanistan, see Index on Afghanistan
here
One February ’06 day, two google “Afghanistan / NATO headlines contradicted each other:
‘Afghan people want us here,' said Canada’s former Ambassador to Afghanistan. The following google
headline was
Suicide Attacks on NATO Escalating in Afghanistan. It seems obvious that the increasing violence is
directly related to the increased number of foreign troops spreading out over Afghanistan.
In April, the Senlis Council published the
Afghanistan Insurgency Report. The Foreign Office
rejected this report, according to The Guardian (05.09.06). “Nato forces in southern Afghanistan are
caught in a cycle of violence against the Taliban which is sparking poverty and starvation on a grand scale …
Ongoing fighting is turning the average Afghan against British and US-led forces, leading some to claim their
lives were better under Taliban rule … The country was 'falling back into the hands of the Taliban' with only
'limited or no central government control …' The report claimed that the international military strategy was
wrong and the focus on 'flawed' poppy eradication policies was causing extreme deprivation … Senlis claimed
the Taliban were carrying out a 'successful insurgency' and gaining a physical and psychological upper hand
over the coalition.”
By May, matters had not improved. Ali Ahmad Jalali,14
wrote “The absence of joint mechanisms to plan and coordinate the actions of national and international
forces in fighting security threats is a significant hurdle in bringing
synergy to stability operations. There is little connection between operations separately planned by the
US-led Coalition, ISAF, and the Afghan security forces. The situation weakens effectiveness and efficiency
and leads to confusion and unintended collateral damage. The establishment of a joint Command and Control
Center to plan, conduct, and coordinate joint operations is of prime importance.”
In June 06, the US government became overtly imperialistic. A headline announces:
U.S. offers to command NATO in Afghanistan following the ‘British stint.’
In the US (July ’06), M. Sappenfield of the CS Monitor wrote of increasing
‘belt-tightening' at US bases. “An Army long strained by the manpower demands of Iraq and Afghanistan is
increasingly facing a new obstacle at home: The service is fast running out of money.”
At the beginning of August, a group of prominent US defense and national security experts15
sounded an
alarm.
“This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals.”
The letter referred to an
earlier report,
The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk, [PDF] “which was met with indifference.”
“The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its
failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable,” they
said.
The “US army also seems to be
weak and frail. In early August at a Pentagon press conference, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
“acknowledged that the US military had reported a shortage of equipment and a declining capacity of combat
readiness.” NATO-led troops in Afghanistan
sought more armour.
This was / is not the only problem. “The
quality of the US soldiers has also slid because of lowered quality set for the recruitment. There is
nothing new for the frequent occurrence of vicious cases in which US officers and soldiers are charged of
committing rape and indiscriminate killing in addition to the deflated morale.”
J. Barnes reported in the LA Times (22.08.06): The Marine Corps said Tuesday that it would begin calling
thousands of Marines
back to active-duty service on an involuntary basis to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan - the latest sign
that American armed forces are under strain and a potential signal of the growing unpopularity of the Iraq
war among young veterans.” The recruitment drive
failed to halt the exodus as the army suffered a shortfall of 1,500.
Meanwhile, in England, a leak revealed a crisis in its army. “The Unions warn that cash shortages will cost
lives as a
MoD memo orders freezes on manpower and kit.” A Guardian headline agonized: “Soldiers are paying with
their lives for this
incompetence.” Michael Moriarty, a former British army officer who has been working for a private
security firm in Afghanistan, added “Escalating commitments, budget squeezes and big equipment programmes
have left Britain's forces fatally overstretched. “
General Dannatt, the new head of the British Army, said to The Guardian (04.09.06): “Can we cope? I
pause. I say ‘just.’ “
37 British soldiers have so far (04.09.06) been killed in Afghanistan.
22 of these deaths have been in the past month.
The Canadians are not happy either. With eight Canadian soldiers killed in August, this was their worst
month. 33 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been
killed since 2002. Prime Minister Harper narrowly won, by 149 / 145, his May plan to extend Canada’s
mission in Afghanistan to 2009. The leader of the opposition party, Jack Layton, representing the wish of
Canada’s restive people, has now called for the
withdrawal of Canadian troops by February 2007.
Further, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Afghan
opium cultivation soared by 59% in 2006. And there are complaints that Karzai is a weak leader, although
Bush, in a press conference, wishfully portrayed him as a ‘strong’ leader..
Death: in Iraq, a new
Quarterly Pentagon Report says that the overall attacks rose 24% to 792 each week and the daily Iraqi
civilian casualties increased by 51% to nearly 120 over the past three months. In the week 24 – 31 September,
more than
300 Iraqis were killed.
One only has to look at the increasing deaths in Afghanistan to query the quicksand in NATO operations. Over
1900 Afghanis have been killed to date (04.09.06). NATO has now set a
6 month deadline to beat the Taliban and “show the government is on the winning side.” Mainstream Media
parrot press releases and refer to ‘Taliban’ or ‘insurgent’ deaths. A 05.09.06
war-fervor headline reads: NATO troops kill up to 60 ‘Taliban’ in Afghanistan. The AFP story says that
some 260 ‘Taliban’ have been killed in the ‘Medusa’ operation. This is convenient, as these people are then
not seen as ‘civilians.’
There is a NATO issue which
has never been clarified. Dr. Daniele Ganser wrote a report16
based on excerpts from his December 2004 book, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in
Western Europe.
Dr. Ganser is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH), Zurich.
Preceding the reprint of an article by Dr. Ganser,
William Bowles asked: “At a time when experts are debating whether NATO is suited to deal with the global
“war on terror”, new research suggests that the alliance’s own secret history has links to terrorism.”
Dr. Ganser wrote about the secret ‘stay-behind’ army who, through terrorism, manipulated Italian politics.
The ‘Gladio’ were hidden within the Defense Ministry as “a subsection of the military secret police.” …
“The terrorists, supplied by the secret army, carried out bomb attacks in public places, blamed them on the
Italian left, and were thereafter protected from prosecution by the military secret service. “You had to
attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political
game,” right-wing terrorist Vincezo Vinciguerra explained the so-called “strategy of tension” to Casson. “The
reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state
to ask for greater security.
“How strongly NATO and US intelligence backed and supported the use of terror in Italy in order to discredit
the political left during the Cold War remains subject of ongoing research. …
“Ever since the discovery of the secret NATO armies in 1990, research into stay-behind armies has progressed
only very slowly, due to very limited access to primary documents and the refusal of both NATO and the CIA to
comment. …
“NATO’s Secret Armies” confirms for the first time that the secret networks spread across Western Europe,
with great details on networks in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium, Denmark,
Norway, Italy, Greece, and Turkey, as well as the strategic planning of Britain and the US.
“In the context of the ongoing so-called war on terror, the Gladio data promotes the sobering insight that
governments in the West have sacrificed the life of innocent citizens and covered up acts of terrorism in
order to manipulate the population. Allegations that NATO, the Pentagon, MI6, the CIA, and European
intelligence services were linked to terror, coups d’état, and torture in Europe are obviously of an
extremely sensitive nature, and future research is needed in the field.”
+
Further secret acts of terror
in Iraq can be read about in Max Fuller’s articles on the
US role in Iraq’s death squads and in my own research of the UK’s
MI5 in Basra.
One must also question the on-going secret Pentagon human trafficking of unnamed prisoners on flights that
pass through British airports to secret torture locations in Europe and beyond.
+
The US government, supported by the UK, is responsible for the increasing violence and loss of democratic principles in their pursuit of this ‘War on Terror’ – a PR cover-up for the control of resources. Is the NATO / USATO involvement part of this disgrace? It would appear that their ‘bathtub of unreadiness’ needs a strong spotlight to reveal the corporate and terrorist grime.
NATO official site
Global Security. There is a full section on the 2006 fiscal year and 2007 NATO budgetary costs
here.
A new Global Security section contains: Facts involving NATO: Deployments; Security; People; Places;
Organizations; Money.
A new Global Security section contains: Facts involving
(security);
(people);
(places);
(organisations);
(money);
VIDEO:
War Corporatism: The New Fascism (2 minutes)
[1] For
other PNAC / NATO documents see
here.
[2]
Rebuilding America's Defences PDF file. pp. 36 - 51
[3] Ibid. p. 60
[4] Ibid. p. 37
[5] Ibid. p. 46.
[6] Ibid. P. 32
[7] Ibid. p. 70
[8] Smith Richardson Foundation (3); Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation (2); William Donner
Foundation (1).
[9] There has been an on-going stench about
Halliburton overcharging. The Army then
fired Halliburton from its Iraq contract.
[10] For Newsday chart, see
here
[11]
Attacks on Iraqi pipelines, oil installations, oil personnel & another map.
[12] This Focus fen story no longer available
[13] Afghanistan’s nickname by The Troops.
‘Asscrackistan.’
[14] Interior Minister of Afghanistan 2003 – 05; now a Professor at the Near South Asia
Center for Strategic Studies of the National Defense University.
[15] William J. Perry Chair, National Security Advisory Group; Madeleine K. Albright,
Graham T. Allison, Samuel R. Berger, Ashton B. Carter, Wesley K. Clark, Thomas E. Donilon, Michele A.
Flournoy, John D. Podesta, Susan E. Rice, John M. Shalikashvili, Wendy R. Sherman, Elizabeth D.
Sherwood-Randall, James B. Steinberg.
[16] The 30 – page summary of Dr. Ganser’s NATO book can be read
here. [PDF file]
Sarah Meyer is a researcher living in the UK.
This article was first published at
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/NATO.htm.
The url to NATO: The Bathtub of Unreadiness is:
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/09/nato-bathtub-of-unreadiness.html