Trump’s dangerous militarism on Korea, Afghanistan


This video from the USA says about itself:

Forget Russia. Is Provoking a Nuclear War with North Korea Grounds for Impeachment?

9 August 2017

Tension between the U.S. and North Korea escalated sharply Tuesday after President Trump suggested he was prepared to start a nuclear war, threatening to unleash “fire and fury” against North Korea. Hours later, North Korea threatened to strike the U.S. territory of Guam in the western Pacific. Guam is home to 163,000 people as well as major U.S. military bases. For more, we speak with longtime investigative journalist Allan Nairn.

A transcript of this video is here.

This video from the USA says about itself:

Why Is U.S. Threatening War with North Korea Instead of Pushing for Negotiations?

10 August 2017

The war of words between the U.S. and North Korea continues to intensify, with North Korea threatening to strike the U.S. territory of Guam, while Defense Secretary General Mattis warned North Korea’s actions could result in the “destruction of its people.” This came after Trump vowed to strike at North Korea with “fire and fury.” … We speak with journalist Tim Shorrock, who recently returned from South Korea.

See also here.

We Need a Mass Movement to Prevent Nuclear Conflict in the Korean Peninsula: here.

TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON NORTH KOREA THREATS President Donald Trump argued Thursday that his “fire and fury” comments may have not been tough enough. Over 60 members of Congress have condemned the president’s statements in a letter sent to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Urges Trump to Privatize Afghan War and Install Viceroy to Run Nation: here.

The US Military’s Bloody “Successes”: Training Foreign Militaries to Start Coups: here.

Donald Trump continuing bloody wars


This video from the USA says about itself:

Trump Sending More Troops To Afghanistan

14 May 2017

Before the election, Trump called the Afghanistan war a mess. Now he’s sending more troops to make a bigger mess. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.

“The Trump administration is looking to change America’s strategy in Afghanistan from waging peace to waging war.

In an effort to turn around the faltering Afghan war, Trump’s top foreign policy and defense advisers, led by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, are recommending that the president send around 3,000 to 5,000 US troops into the country, reports the Washington Post.

They would primarily serve as trainers to Afghan forces who are currently fighting the Taliban …

But the country’s top intelligence official isn’t sure it’s such a good idea. “The intelligence community assesses that the political and security situation in Afghanistan will almost certainly deteriorate through 2018, even with a modest increase in (the) military assistance by the United States and its partners,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee today.”

Read more here.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Western wars fuel the cycle of bloodshed

Saturday 5th July 2017

“I WANT to find out why we’ve been there for 17 years,” US President Donald Trump reportedly raged following news of more murder and mayhem in Afghanistan. “We aren’t winning. We are losing.”

The trigger-happy president in the White House imagines that his armies are in difficulty because he can’t get the staff: US officials say he has pressed for the top US commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, to be fired.

Nicholson is the 17th Nato commander in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion took place in 2001, so singling him out might seem unfair.

Admittedly his job is harder than his predecessors’ because the war he’s tasked with was declared over by Barack Obama at the end of 2014, which makes the continuing deaths of soldiers and civilians in the central Asian country more embarrassing for Washington.

The killing of a Georgian soldier and two Afghan civilians on Thursday, following that of two US troops on Wednesday, show the Taliban remains a lethal adversary.

But the Islamist group — which itself grew out of the mojahedin insurgents armed and funded by the US and its allies in their successful bid to destroy the socialist and secular Afghanistan of the 1970s and 1980s — is no longer the country’s last word in Wahhabi extremism, since Islamic State (Isis), a child of the US and British invasion of Iraq, is now also busy murdering police officers and Red Crescent workers.

(This provided the rationale for Trump to drop the “mother of all bombs” on Nangarhar province in April, killing around 100 supposed Isis fighters

including prisoners of ISIS

and shattering windows and damaging homes within a two-mile radius).

Those who naively hoped Trump would cut a less warlike figure on the world stage than his rival Hillary Clinton, whose hysterical pre-election threats against Russia and Iran raised terrifying prospects of a new world war, have been disappointed: the US continues to play with fire in Ukraine, Korea and Syria while the conflict in Afghanistan, the first battlefield of the endless “war on terror,” is still claiming lives.

But Trump’s assumption that a “win” could have been racked up in Afghanistan given a different commander or alternative tactics is common in this country too, and enables politicians to beat the drum for further conflicts even when the disastrous consequences of the previous war have become clear.

We were told that Libya was different from Iraq and that Syria was different from Libya.

But the experience in all three countries and over 16 years of bloodshed in Afghanistan demonstrates that Western intervention has been a godsend for extremist groups and has created a more violent and unstable planet.

The left has made serious advances in Britain over the past two years. Labour’s huge gains in the June election on an anti-austerity manifesto have silenced — for now — those elements of the party’s right who promote privatisation under the guise of “reforming” public services.

But the attachment to a US-led global order where the richest nations reserve the right to impose their will by force is as strong as ever — hence the current crop of liberal interventionists attacking Jeremy Corbyn for declining to cheer on the US-led bullying of Venezuela.

This weekend as we mark 72 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima we must remember that the peace movement is as vital as ever, and recognise that the fight against militarism and imperialism is an urgent priority for the whole of Britain’s left.

What will cure the U.S. addiction to war? Here.

The mask is off: Trump is seeking war with Iran: here.

United States air force kills Afghan police allies


This 19 September 2016 video is called 8 Afghan police killed in US airstrikes in Uruzgan.

Now, another year (this year) and another province.

According to a CNN report today, the United States air force has killed Afghan police allies. Dutch NOS TV says that the United States bombs killed at least twelve policemen in Helmand province.

New German barracks still named after Hitler’s old marshal Rommel


This Voice of America video says about itself:

Evidence of Pro-Nazi Extremists in German Military Deepens

19 May 2017

Evidence of far-right extremism within the German armed forces is growing following the arrest Friday of four students at a military university in Munich. Police are trying to establish whether they have links to another soldier accused of plotting to frame refugees in a terror attack. As Henry Ridgwell reports, the allegations remain sensitive in a country where the 20th century Nazi history casts a long shadow.

By Johannes Stern in Germany:

German defence minister praises Rommel, Hitler’s “favourite general”

20 June 2017

Last Saturday, speaking at the Field Marshal Rommel Barracks, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Army would keep the name of the barracks. “The Rommel Barracks has been so named consciously on an anniversary of the resistance. And that shows that Rommel also had his role in the resistance,” she told media representatives. It had therefore been decided not to rename the barracks.

Von der Leyen’s announcement on the so-called Day of the German Armed Forces shows the true mindset that prevails at the top of the Defence Ministry. Following the uncovering of a neo-Nazi terrorist cell in the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) at the beginning of May, von der Leyen had been compelled to make some critical remarks about the all-too-obvious continuity of military traditions from Hitler’s Wehrmacht to today’s Bundeswehr. She was enthusiastically praised for this, especially by the Left Party.

From the beginning, the announcement by the minister of defence to rename some barracks and to remove Wehrmacht memorabilia was hypocrisy. It was a nod towards the anti-militarist sentiment in the population and merely served to downplay the extent of the right-wing conspiracy in the army. Now, von der Leyen has decided it is time to go on the offensive. Of all of Germany’s war-time generals, she has chosen to line up behind the one who was carefully built up in the Third Reich through Goebbels’s propaganda ministry to become Hitler’s most famous “war hero”.

Von der Leyen’s claim that Rommel was part of the resistance to Hitler is absurd. Before Rommel clashed with Hitler over military matters at the end of the war, and was driven to commit suicide, he was considered Hitler’s “favourite general”. In October 1942, after a conversation with the Nazi leader, Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Rommel has made a very deep impression on him [Hitler]. … He has a firm world-view, is not only close to us national socialists [Nazis] but is a national socialist.”

Among other things during his career, Rommel was commander of the Führer Headquarters, and played a central role in the Nazi war machine in five campaigns—Poland, France, Africa, Italy and the Atlantic Wall. To the very end, the Nazis clung to the “Rommel myth” they had themselves created. On October 18, 1944, Hitler’s personal daily order for the state burial of the general in Ulm read: “In the present struggle for the fate of the German people, his name is the byword for outstanding bravery and fearless bravado.”

What Hitler meant by this can be seen in Rommel’s own orders. As commander of the brutal German occupation of Italy, against all the provisions of the Geneva Convention, he compelled more than a million disarmed Italian soldiers to work as “military internees” for the German war economy. Rommel’s order of October 1, 1943, regarding this read: “This war is a total war. If the men of Italy no longer have the opportunity to fight for the freedom and honour of their fatherland, they have the duty to use their full labour power in this struggle.”

Just a week before, on September 23, 1943, he had issued the instruction: “Any sentimental inhibitions on the part of German soldiers towards gangs loyal to [former Italian general] Badoglio in the uniform of former comrades-in-arms are completely inappropriate. Any of these who fight against German soldiers has lost any right to protection, and is to be treated with the harshness which belongs to scum that suddenly turns his weapons against his friend. This view must be made common knowledge among all German troops.”

Von der Leyen’s partisan defence of Rommel confirms the warnings of the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) and the World Socialist Web Site. The return of German militarism and the systematic transformation of the Bundeswehr into a military task force, or rather a war force, defending the interests of German imperialism around the world requires the revival of the old Nazi traditions and their criminal methods.

In the meantime, this can be clearly seen in the official foreign policy publications of the German government. For example, a contribution in the anthology Germany’s new responsibility, presented by the minister of defence at this year’s Munich Security Conference, complains that in Germany, the “neurotic effort to remain morally clean” runs through almost all domestic and foreign policy debates.

In this it was clear: “Whoever goes to war, must, as a rule, take responsibility for the deaths of people. Including the deaths of uninvolved and innocent people.” Especially, in “times of new strategic uncertainty,” the role of the military should be “particularly emphasised [again], not only because society demands such hard tasks, but because it ultimately remains the most critical, and therefore also the most demanding, the crowning discipline of foreign policy.”

The concluding prognosis by Jan Techau, the author of these lines, whose current book bears the notable title Leadership Power Germany, would also have met with enthusiastic support among the generals of the Wehrmacht: In the coming years, Germany “will have to do much more politically and militarily” and will “be confronted with foreign and security policy issues”, of which “the country does not even dare to dream today. Maybe not even in its nightmares.”

Von der Leyen’s revival of the Rommel myth goes hand in hand with the preparation of new “nightmares”. “Warm words are not enough,” she declared at the Rommel Barracks. In view of growing international challenges, soldiers “will need more and more sustainable funding and support from society in the coming years.” She boasted that after 25 years of cuts, the Army would finally be able to grow and recruit more staff. New materiel would also be procured for foreign assignments.

Speaking to the press, von der Leyen then gave free rein to her dreams of new German war and colonial policies. She expected the Bundeswehr to be in Afghanistan for many years to come. “Even in Kosovo, the Bundeswehr has been stationed there for almost 20 years. In Afghanistan, we probably have to think in even longer periods, “she said. “We should not keep asking when can we withdraw, because it motivates the terrorists and unsettles the people who want to stay at home.” To stabilise Afghanistan needs “patience and a long breath”.

The German ruling class is forging its war plans against increasing resistance in the population. On Thursday, an INSA survey for the Bild newspaper revealed that 55 percent of Germans are for the complete withdrawal of the Bundeswehr from Afghanistan. Only one in five respondents supported German soldiers remaining in the country.

In April, an extensive neo-Nazi network was discovered in the German Bundeswehr (Armed Forces), which planned terrorist attacks against high-ranking politicians and glorified Hitler’s army (the Wehrmacht). Barely three months later, leading newsweekly Der Spiegel has published an interview in which the military historian Sönke Neitzel praises the Wehrmacht and plays down the right-wing terror in which it participated: here.

Bush’s ‘new’ Afghanistan’s vice presidential torture, sexual abuse scandal


This video says about itself:

The Shady Afghan Warlords Whom the US Pays to Fight the Taliban

Afghan Warlords (2009): Despite shady pasts, powerful warlords are given recognition from Washington in return for their support fighting drug traffickers and the Taliban. We take a look at America’s new pragmatic approach.

One such character is Gul Agha Sherzai, aka The Bulldozer and Governor of Nangarhar for the last five years. After striking a political deal with President Karzai, he became a power broker to be reckoned with.

Ruling from his Jalalabad palace, Sherzai shows off his power: The Taliban is no danger. I have defeated them. By Afghan standards, security in his region has drastically improved along with an impressive fall in drugs production. Its hard to argue that he’s been anything but a success to enthuse US counter-narcotics officials. However, his past is less than pristine.

An expert on the region says: To be an effective leader there, at some point you had to have been involved in the commission of atrocities, together with the accumulation of enormous wealth and that means opium.’ Sherzai allegedly got wealthy during his time as governor of Kandahar taking a cut from the opium profits from the area. While his former associate has been serving a life sentence in the US, he’s been enjoying a high-profile collaboration with Washington. Why? Theres a perception [in] the West that he’s somebody who can be rehabilitated. He was simply deemed more useful.

From the BBC:

Afghan Vice-President Dostum flies to Turkey amid torture claims

Afghanistan’s Vice-President, Abdul Rashid Dostum, has left the country amid claims that he ordered his men to kidnap, beat and rape a political rival last year.

Afghan officials confirmed he had left Kabul for Turkey on Friday night.

General Dostum has not been charged with any offence, and the incident is under government investigation. …

The vice-president is a former [?] warlord with decades of experience in Afghanistan’s turbulent political arena.

He is blamed for some of the worst atrocities in the country’s long-running civil war, but joined its national unity government in 2014.

The allegations against him come from Ahmad Eshchi, a former ally, who says he suffered days of severe beatings and sexual abuse at Gen Dostum’s command.

He said the vice-president and 10 other men assaulted him while he was forcibly kept at Gen Dostum’s residence in November 2016.

The ex-warlord denies the claims and has said that Mr Eshchi was detained by the country’s intelligence service. …

In 2008 Gen Dostum went to Turkey amid similar allegations that his personal militia had abducted, beaten and sexually assaulted a political rival in Kabul, then fired on police who responded to the incident.

The U.S. will never win the war in Afghanistan: here.