0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
780 $
COLLECTED IN DECEMBER

Inevitable Withdrawal: The US-Taliban Deal

Donate

Inevitable Withdrawal: The US-Taliban Deal

ILLUSTRATIVE

Submitted by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It took gallons and flagons of blood, but it eventuated, a squeeze of history into a parchment of possibility: the Taliban eventually pushed the sole superpower on this expiring earth to a deal of some consequence.  (The stress is on the some – the consequence is almost always unknown.)  “In principle, on paper, yes we have reached an agreement,” claimed the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on the Afghan channel ToloNews.  “But it is not final until the president of the United States also agrees to it.”

The agreement entails the withdrawal (the public relations feature of the exercise teasingly calls this “pulling out”) of 5,400 troops from the current complement of 14,000 within 135 days of signature.  Five military bases will close or be transferred to the Afghan government.  In return, the Taliban has given an undertaking never to host forces with the intention of attacking the US and its interests.

Exactitude, however, is eluding the press and those keen to get to the marrow.  Word on the policy grapevine is that this is part of an inexorable process that will see a full evacuation within 16 months, though this remains gossip.

The entire process has its exclusions, qualifications and mutual deceptions.  In it is a concession, reluctant but ultimately accepted, that the Taliban was a credible power that could never be ignored.  To date, the US has held nine rounds of talks, a seemingly dragged out process with one ultimate outcome: a reduction, and ultimate exit of combat forces.

The Taliban was not, as the thesis of certain US strategists, a foreign bacillus moving its way through the Afghan body politic, the imposition of a global fundamentalist corporation.  Corrupt local officials of the second rank, however, were also very much part and parcel of the effort, rendering any containment strategy meaningless.

A narrative popular and equally fallacious was the notion that the Taliban had suffered defeat and would miraculously move into the back pages of history.  Similar views were expressed during the failed effort by the United States to combat the Viet Cong in South Vietnam.  An elaborate calculus was created, a mirage facilitated through language: the body count became a means of confusing numbers with political effect.

Time and time again, the Taliban demonstrated that B52s, well-equipped foreign forces and cruise missiles could not extricate them from the land that has claimed so many empires.  Politics can only ever be the realisation of tribes, collectives, peoples; weapons and material are unkind and useful companions, but never viable electors or officials.

Even now, the desire to remain from those in overfunded think tanks and well-furnished boardrooms, namely former diplomats engaged on the Afghan project, is stubborn and delusionary.  If withdrawal is to take place, goes that tune, it should hinge on a pre-existing peace agreement.  An open letter published by the Atlantic Council by nine former US State Department officials previously connected with the country is a babbling affair.  “If a peace agreement is going to succeed, we and others need to be committed to continued support for peace consolidation.  This will require monitoring compliance, tamping down of those extremists opposed to peace, and supporting good governance and economic growth with international assistance.”

The presumptuousness of this tone is remarkable, heavy with work planning jargon and spread sheet nonsense.  There is no peace to keep, nor governance worth preserving.  Instead, the authors of the note, including such failed bureaucratic luminaries as John Negroponte, Robert P. Finn and Ronald E. Neumann, opt for the imperial line: the US can afford staying in Afghanistan because the Afghans are the ones fighting and dying.  (Again, this is Vietnam redux, an Afghan equivalent of Vietnamisation.)  In their words, “US fatalities are tragic, but the number of those killed in combat make up less than 20 percent of the US troops who died in non-combat training incidents.”  All good, then.

In a sign of ruthless bargaining, the Taliban continued the bloodletting even as the deal was being ironed of evident wrinkles.  This movement knows nothing of peace but all about the life of war: death is its sovereign; corpses, its crop.  On Monday, the Green Village in Kabul was targeted by a truck bomb, leaving 16 dead (this toll being bound to rise).  It was a reminder that the Taliban, masters of whole swathes of the countryside, can also strike deep in the capital itself.  The killings also supplied the Afghan government a salutary reminder of its impotence, underscored by the fact that President Ashraf Ghani played no role in the Qatar talks.

This leaves us with the realisation that much cruelty is on the horizon.  The victory of the Taliban is an occasion to cheer the bloodying of the imperialist’s nose.  But they will not leave documents of enlightenment, speeches to inspire.  This agreement will provide little comfort for those keen to read a text unmolested or seek an education free of crippling dogma. Interior cannibalisation is assured, with civil war a distinct possibility.  Tribal war is bound to continue.

As this takes place, the hope for President Donald Trump and his officials will no doubt be similar to the British when they finally upped stakes on instruction from Prime Minister David Cameron: forget that the whole thing ever happened.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Lazy Gamer

    Moab has a net effect of 0. lol That is for trump 2020. Now whether the deal persists is up to the generals or whoever wins at 2020 or by some horrific event. However, time and money and the proliferation of assymetric weapons are not on the side of those who want to maintain a military presence. Those taliban reeducation camps are not something those in government look forward to.

    • Barba_Papa

      Nor something that many in the Afghan major cities who are more liberal will look forward too. Especially women. I fully expect a new tidal wave of Afghan refugees coming to Europe. Because as always, the US embarks on its crazy adventures, the Europeans end up having to pay for them. Although it has to be said that Iran already hosts millions of them and has even granted them citizenship.

      • Lazy Gamer

        The govt would not last. Migration is the only option for those seeking to escape obsolete values.

  • Veritas Vincit

    The US has shown an incapability of honouring agreements. This is the first reason a lasting negotiated settlement is unlikely.

    It is also worth considering various reports regarding US-private sector negotiations/considerations of transitioning operations from direct state involvement to a private format (mercenaries). [6-7]

    Recognising the unchanging US objective of securing the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline (TAPI) [1-3] and recently with focus on exploiting extensive resources including rare earth metals [4-5], it is unlikely the US will abandon its regime change objective (to install aligned political assets to facilitate economic exploitation and military bloc expansion).

    As the US is also currently seeking to secure Syrian oil producing regions through proxies, realities (as opposed to Western bloc propaganda) concerning globally expanding US -allied wars (of aggression) become clear.

    Of course, the globally expanding wars of the US-NATO-allied bloc (that has embraced war as a mechanism to pursue strategic and commercial objectives) continue to globally expand and are progressing towards the logical (albeit unwanted) conclusion.

    Note: It is worth noting the US has previously escalated offensive operations immediately preceding negotiations as a form of applying pressure (seeking leverage). That the Taliban have reciprocated in kind should come as no surprise (in the process demonstrating their capability to penetrate ‘protected’ zones).

    • Veritas Vincit

      References:

      1. “In June 2001, an announcement was made by US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that the US would give the Taliban government of Afghanistan a gift of $43 million, “which made the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban.” In 1997, Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as its CEO, secured a contract in Turkmenistan for exploration and drilling in the Caspian Sea basin…. In the summer of 2001, the Taliban were leaked information from top secret meetings that the Bush regime was planning to launch a military operation against the Taliban in July to replace the government. A US military contingency plan existed on paper to attack Afghanistan from the north by the end of the summer.

      A former Pakistani diplomat told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban before the 9/11 attacks. Niaz Naik, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, “was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.” Conclusion: The war on Afghanistan was launched on October 7, 2001. An operation of this size could not be planned and executed within three weeks, as we are led to believe. The plans and preparations were in place in the year leading up to the invasion….. The result of this war on Afghanistan is that Afghanistan’s new President is Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal adviser, opium production reaches record level every single year, and as of April 2008, a US-sponsored pipeline agreement was signed with Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, and may have Canadian forces in Afghanistan guarding the pipeline route. Mission Accomplished. (Origins of Afghan War, Andrew G. Marshall, Geopoliticalmonitor, September 14, 2008)

      2.”The US$8 billion,1,814-kilometer Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) was officially inaugurated on Friday, in full pomp, and with proceedings broadcast live on Afghan TV, on the Turkmen-Afghan border close to Herat. Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani hosted Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Turkmenistan’s President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov and India’s Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar. Assuming there are no major glitches – and that’s a major “if” – TAPI should, in theory, be finished by 2020. So far, though, endless deadlines have come and gone.

      TAPI simply cannot exist without Taliban approval. According to a statement by Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yusuf Ahmadi, “the Islamic Emirate views this project as an important element of the country’s economic infrastructure and believes its proper implementation will benefit the Afghan people. We announce our cooperation in providing security for the project in areas under our control.”

      Another Taliban faction, led by Mullah Mohammad Rasool, also let it be known, via spokesman Mullah Abdul Manan Niazi, that, “we will not allow any group or state to disrupt this project.”

      All of the above is code for the Taliban getting their cut – which happens to have been the key point of contention ever since the first Clinton administration decided the then rulers of Afghanistan were worth doing business with. So when spokesman Ahmadi claims TAPI was initially planned when the Taliban were in power in Kabul from 1996 to 2001, he’s correct. The Taliban were wined and dined in Houston in 1997, as I reported for Asia Times, but nothing came out of it. The haggling was all about transit fees.” (Afghanistan ready to play connector role in Eurasian integration
      by Pepe Escobar, February 27, 2018)

      3. ‘Plans for offensive operations against Afghanistan prepared before the events on 9/11/2001- Al Qaeda monitored pipeline negotiations, attack followed’

      – “It was at the July meeting…. [Ambassador] Tom Simons suggested that Afghanistan could face an open-ended military operation….. if it didn’t accede to U.S. demands. “Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn’t agree with the plan [relating to the proposed strategic Trans-Afghanistan pipeline], and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan….. The words used by Simons were “a military operation”…. Another participant reportedly said the Taliban’s choice was clear: either accept a “carpet of gold” riches from the pipeline or “a carpet of bombs,” meaning a military strike…. [Ambassador Tom Simons] confirms that only a few weeks before Sept. 11, American diplomats warned of military action against Afghanistan if its leaders did not meet U.S. economic and political demands.” (Al-Qaida monitored U.S. negotiations with Taliban over oil pipeline, A memo by military chief Mohammed Atef raises new questions about whether failed U.S. efforts to reform Afghanistan’s radical regime — and build the pipeline — set the stage for Sept. 11., 05/06/2002)

      – “The NSPD [National Security Presidential Directive] called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics. [It was presented for decision by principals on September 4, 2001, 7 days before September 11th.] (NSPD-9: Combating Terrorism, October 25, 2001)

      – “Khalilzad was a consultant for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which conducting risk analysis for Unocal, now part of Chevron, for a proposed [1400 km, $2 billion] Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and further proceeding to Pakistan. He acted as a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban regime.” (Wikipedia: Zalmay Khalilzad)

      D Cheney formerly CEO of Halliburton had meetings with numerous oil company executives regarding potential lucrative contracts in relation to Central Asian resources, requested a study into the feasibility of military interventionism and later authorised uncontested contracts for Halliburton and KBR in Afghanistan after the invasion.

      The invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan relates to resources/resource distribution routes (commercial objectives), establishing a permanent strategic military presence (strategic objectives) and efforts to install a client regime (political engineering).

      – “Just as the Bosnian conflict was part of an effort to secure the Balkan states for an oil and gas pipeline to the European energy market, so the US is seeking secure passage for a pipeline through Afghanistan to feed the Asian energy markets and the US itself.” (The Bush Administration’s Afghan Carpet, Players on a rigged grand chessboard: Bridas, Unocal and the Afghanistan pipeline, Online Journal, 10 March 2002)

      • Veritas Vincit

        References (continued)

        4. “Afghanistan has “world-class mineral resources” including rare-earth elements, gold, iron and copper, the U.S. Geological Survey said today…. Clinton made her comments at a meeting with 30 of her international counterparts on a “New Silk Road” initiative during the United Nations General Assembly last week. The initiative aims to encourage investment and create new economic and transit connections within the region.” (Afghanistan Has ‘World-Class’ Mineral Resources, U.S. Says
        Bloomberg Businessweek, By Nicole Gaouette, September 29, 2011)

        5. “As US President Donald Trump prepares to announce his administration’s strategy for the stalemate in Afghanistan later on Monday, the South Asian country’s $3 trillion wealth of natural resources has taken the center of attention. While the US Department of Defense’s estimates have put Afghanistan’s untapped wealth of gold, copper, uranium and other rare-earth minerals at well around $1 trillion, Afghan officials’ latest geological studies hint at figures three times larger.

        The number can probably explain Washington’s willingness to continue the war in Afghanistan….. Interestingly, Trump has been receiving informal advice on Afghanistan from his billionaire friend Andy Feinberg, who owns major US military contractor DynCorp. The company has been operating in Afghanistan since 2003 and is believed to play a role in securing the country’s mines, according to the New York Times. (Trump eying stake in Afghanistan’s $3tn natural resources, PressTV, Aug 21, 2017)

        6. “Listening to Prince make his pitch, it becomes immediately clear that his scheme is not an alternative to a “surge” but rather an adjunct to it: he wants to let the generals have their way for six months or so, and then his company would be brought it to consolidate and maintain the gains made. At that point, a “Viceroy” would be brought in who would have complete control of US policy in Afghanistan, presumably one of Prince’s employees if not Prince himself.

        The rules of engagement would be dispensed with, and any level of brutality would be allowed. Since the Afghan government is broke, and is entirely dependent on US aid, one has to assume that the American taxpayers would be paying for Prince’s “services” – oh, but Prince has a handy-dandy solution for this problem, which is to allow him to exploit Afghanistan’s supposedly fabulous mineral resources.” (Privatize the Afghan War?, by Justin Raimondo, August 08, 2017)

        7. “The basics of Prince’s plan: Swap out the people: There are 23,000 multinational forces in Afghanistan (including about 15,000 Americans and about 8,000 NATO-member country forces) and about 27,000 DoD-supporting contractors. Prince wants to replace them with a smaller footprint of 6,000 contractors and 2,000 active-duty U.S. special operations forces. The 6,000 contractors would be made up of 60 percent former U.S. special operations forces and 40 percent former NATO special operations forces….
        Prince said he can execute this mission on a budget of roughly $5.5 billion. Specifically, $3.5 billion for the contractors, aircraft, warehouses for logistics and the field hospitals; about $2 billion for the 2,000 U.S. special operations forces. ” (Here’s the blueprint for Erik Prince’s $5 billion plan to privatize the Afghanistan war, MilitaryTimes, By Tara Copp, 05/09/2018)

        • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

          Very interesting articles, thanks for sharing.
          Do you have the links to the sources?

          • You can call me Al

            There are 3 comments relating to his article (extended comment), you need to read all 3.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            ok, thanks

  • Ed

    Can someone please explain to me how the Taliban claim to hope to achieve peace when they attack Afghanistan on a daily basis, killing not just soldiers but civilians as well? Another bombing occurred today (5/9/19), claimed by them which killed civilians. Do people REALLY think the violence will stop once the US have left? If so, I would love to know why/how people think this because I am obviously missing something!

    • Veritas Vincit

      Your question seeking to frame the US military occupation of Afghanistan as somehow contributing to stability. The reality is the opposite. Its military occupation of Afghanistan is the foundation of uncompromising efforts by Afghan militant groups to expel this foreign military occupation (Afghan militant groups replicating the format of US Operation Cyclone but with US-allied forces as the target).

      The death of civilians is regarded by both sides as ‘collateral damage’ (as is an aspect of war, attacks that seek to shock/broadly instil fear are intended to demoralise opponents. I do not support such tactics. This is merely a matter of fact).

      More importantly, as clarified in the information I have provided in the comments section, the US presence in Afghanistan is associated with commercial and strategic objectives including efforts to secure a strategic pipeline(TAPI), to secure key resources within Afghanistan and to establish a permanent strategic presence in the region (the pursuit of such objectives qualifying as crimes under international law).

      It is also unfortunate that you do not understand what is more broadly developing. In time you shall understand. The following, although lengthy, should provide clarification:

      – Report: One Click Closer to Annihilation, by Philip Giraldi (a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer), October 2, 2018: [Excerpt] “Last week Washington threatened Iran, Syria, China, Venezuela and Russia…… The nuclear war doomsday clock maintained on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists website has advanced to two minutes before midnight, the closest point to possible atomic apocalypse since the end of the Cold War. In 1995 the clock was at fourteen minutes to midnight, but the opportunity to set it back even further was lost as the United States and its European allies took advantage of a weakened Russia to advance NATO into Eastern Europe, setting the stage for a new cold war, which is now underway….. America is in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to stay while nearly all agree a war with Iran is coming soon. Everyone is the enemy and everyone hates the United States, mostly for good reasons.” [End] (See also: The Path to World War III, by Philip Giraldi, 25/09/2018),

      The pursuit of global primacy (‘full spectrum dominance’/world domination) by the US-NATO-allied bloc involves efforts to expand global military/missile architecture, weaken/partition strategic opponents, create client states (politically engineering of nations to facilitate commercial penetration and strategic alignment), engage in economic warfare/economic strangulation of entire nations (conforming to the definition of genocide in the case of Iraq as stated by various UN officials) and secure resources of foreign nations (generally through proxies). An active US-NATO project also involves the replication of the Soviet economic/military bloc model but in opposition to the Russian Federation (a military bloc expansion project that is in violation of former agreements between the US-NATO bloc and Russia and is progressing towards a direct kinetic stage of conflict).

      Following successive wars of aggression (against Yugoslavia [1], Afghanistan, Iraq [2], Libya [3], Syria [4], etc. conducted under false pretexts to facilitate ‘military intervention’, confrontation with Iran, Venezuela, the DPRK, Russia [5], China, etc., is active and gradually progressing to more advanced stages. Brinkmanship is evident and limits of restraint are being approached. As the U.S.-NATO-allied bloc continues in the direction of confrontation (including the build-up/deployment of military forces and missile architecture that at a certain stage will necessitate a more robust response from Russia and China), in time these limits will likely be exceeded.

      – “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” [A. Einstein].

      • Veritas Vincit

        – “The US military-intelligence complex is engaged in systematic preparations for World War III. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, a military conflict with China and/or Russia is inevitable, and this prospect has become the driving force of its tactical and strategic planning…. Each of the hearings presumed a major US conflict with another great power (sometimes unnamed, sometimes explicitly designated as China or Russia) within a relatively short time frame, years rather than decades.” (Washington prepares for World War III, WSWS, 5 November 2015)

        1.0 The origins of another world war.

        1999 – NATO begins to engage in a more significant phase of regime change and partition operations (employing falsified intelligence and atrocity propaganda as is a standard modus operandi) to facilitate a NATO bloc expansion project (replicating the former Soviet economic/military bloc model but in opposition to Russia).

        – “The bombing of Yugoslavia was not a ‘one-off’ but merely the first stage in a war against independently-minded, strategically important countries that defied the imperial writ of the hawks in Washington….. The illegal and utterly catastrophic assault on Iraq was launched two years after that, on the fraudulent grounds that the country possessed WMDs which could be assembled and launched within 45 minutes. The NATO bombardment of Libya came in 2011, transforming a country with the Highest Human Development in Africa into a jihadists’ playground. In Syria, ‘rebels’ were backed in order to try and topple a secular government…. Today, its Venezuela and Iran which are in the line of fire and of course there’s the ongoing baiting of Russia and the ratcheting up of Cold War 2.0 tensions.” (NATO Bombed Serbia for 78 Days in 1999 Because It Was Resisting Globalism and Capitalism, Neil Clark, 27/03/2019)

        – “The NATO attack on Yugoslavia has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting anyone since the claims made by NATO against the government of Yugoslavia were false and were just a pretext for their aggression,” says Christopher C. Black, a Toronto-based international criminal lawyer with 20 years of experience in war crimes and international relations….. “NATO countries had no legal right to bomb anyone for any reason as that is a violation of international law, the UN Charter, Nuremberg Principles etc.,” the scholar underscored. “Their attack was aggression and therefore a war crime and they committed war crimes during the attack.” (“Good” Bombing: NATO Op Against Yugoslavia Was a War Crime – Lawyer, Ekaterina Blinova, SputnikNews, 10/10/2018)

        – “1999 NATO’s bombings of Yugoslavia were an act of aggression, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said….. “The attack on Yugoslavia was, of course, an aggression. By the way, this was the first armed assault in Europe on a sovereign state since 1945… I remind you that the aggression against… Yugoslavia was associated with a huge number of attacks on civilian objects, including Serbia’s television broadcasting facilities, bridges, which were used by civilian passenger trains and many other things,”…. In 1999, NATO led by the United States engaged in a 78-day military campaign against what was then Yugoslavia, which consisted of Serbia and Montenegro, over alleged repressions of Albanians in Kosovo. Previously, Albanians were engaged in killing Serbian police and civilians in a push for independence from the historically-Serbian province.” (NATO Bombings of Yugoslavia Aggression Against Sovereign State – Lavrov, SputnikNews, 31/10/2016)

        Refer also:
        – NATO Expansion Technique: First Create a Problem, Then Impose Your Services, SputnikNews,
        27/05/2017

        – Ex-NATO General Secretary Says US-led Military Bloc Would Like To See Ukraine-style Changes In Belarus, Southfront, 08/11/2018

        • Veritas Vincit

          (continued):
          – “Kosovo is home to one of America’s largest military bases, Camp Bondsteel. Bondsteel was built on contract to the Pentagon by Halliburton, through its engineering subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)…. The US and NATO had advanced plans to bomb Yugoslavia before 1999, and many European political leaders now believe that the US deliberately used the bombing of Yugoslavia to establish camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. According to Colonel Robert L. McCure, “Engineering planning for operations in Kosovo began months before the first bomb was dropped.”

          – “One of the objectives underlying Camp Bondsteel was to protect the Albanian-Macedonian-Bulgarian Oil pipeline project (AMBO), which was to channel Caspian sea oil from the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic. Coincidentally, two years prior to the invasion, in 1997, a senior executive of `Brown & Root Energy, a subsidiary of Halliburton, Edward L. (Ted) Ferguson had been appointed to head AMBO. The feasibility plans for the AMBO pipeline were also undertaken by Halliburton’s engineering company, Kellog, Brown & Root Ltd.” (The Criminalization of the State: “Independent Kosovo”, a Territory under US-NATO Military Rule, February 4, 2008)

          2.0 U.S.-NATO war against Iraq
          – “Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group. IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East….. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.” (IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser, By Emad Mekay, IPS, Mar 29 2004)

          – “Papers posted by the Washington-based National Security Archive shows Rumsfeld discussing war plans for Iraq just two months after the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. In memos dated November 27, he had listed justifications for the war on Iraq.” (Bush team wanted Iraq war from start, PressTV, Sep 23, 2010)

          3.0 U.S.-NATO war against Libya
          – “One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve [has] revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves. The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”. From Foreign Policy Journal: The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.” Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.” (Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency, June 13, 2017)

          4.0 War against Syria
          – – “Wikileaks published an email of the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealing that the administration of the ex-President of the US Barack Obama may have fueled a war in Syria to assist Israel against the Iranian-Syrian “dangerous alliance”. In the email, Clinton stressed that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad must be overthrown “only by force” to assist Israel in dealing “with Iran’s growing nuclear capability”. She affirmed that Assad’s relationship with Iran and Hezbollah had undermined Israel’s security. Thus, Israel wasn’t capable to “respond any provocations” of this “dangerous alliance”. According to the email, this mission could be carried out by “arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power” that could limit the US costs.” (Hillary Clinton’s Leaked Email Shows US Administration Supported War In Syria To Help Israel
          22/05/2018)

          5.0 ‘Forms of warfare against the Russian Federation are active’
          – “I think everybody understands that an undeclared war against us is underway…..” [Russian State Duma’s Budget and Tax Committee Andrey Makarov] said. (“Undeclared war” forces Russia to boost defense spending — minister, Tass, October 27, 2018)

          – “if data on Russia-NATO power balance at the Western direction is analyzed, as well as military activity build-up rate at our borders, scale of combat equipment deployment, if the grade of Russia’s demonization is estimated, one can say that preparation to a real war is taking place. [Such] acts are usually undertaken at the forefront of a war [and it is evident] the US is preparing for a [potential] nuclear conflict……” [Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the International Centre of Geopolitical Analysis]

          – “We know what will happen year after year, and they know that we know… Russia will no longer play games with the USA and get involved in deals in the dark. Russia is ready for serious negotiations, only if they contribute to collective security. All aspects of global security now lie in ruins. There are no more international guarantees for security and the country responsible for the destruction of the global security is the USA. Russia does not intend to reform the world according to its own views, and will not allow itself to be reformed according to foreign views. Russia will not close itself for the world, but anyone who tries to close it to the world will harvest storms. Russia will not act as the savior of the world either, as in the past. Russia does not want war and does not intend to start a war. But today, Russia can see that the explosion of a global war is almost unavoidable and is prepared and will continue preparing. Russia does not want a war but is not afraid of a war. Those who get Russia involved in this process will learn the real meaning of pain”. [Vladimir Putin] (At the Threshold of a Third World War, Southfront, 12/09/2016),

          8.0 ‘Conclusion’
          The globally expanding wars (of aggression) of the U.S.-NATO-Israel-allied bloc will not cease until the logical (albeit unwanted) conclusion is reached. The staged application of successive wars of aggression (with associated false Western bloc media narratives/propaganda to engineer public support) will continue to distort/manipulate public perceptions and unwittingly in the process obscure understanding of what is unfolding. But when the many wars progress to more advanced stages (as is gradually occurring) and become recognised as one, there will be understanding.

          Note: In the meantime, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. The beliefs of individuals have no bearing on what is unfolding.