US Protects Chinese Investments

There are more mercenary forces, euphemistically called 'contractors', in the American war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan then regular U.S. armed forces. They will remain behind when regular U.S. forces withdraw.

Mercenaries today operate in Iraq and Afghanistan, supplementing U.S. troop strength and guarding diplomats. In the spring of 2008, 180,000 private contractors worked in Iraq; by the spring of 2009, 68,200 were operating in Afghanistan. These “soldiers of fortune” treat each new posting as a “tour of duty” (a term used by a former Blackwater employee working in Afghanistan). Their deaths and casualty numbers are not included in the official Department of Defense numbers.

According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country.

However the irony is that even the regular US forces are now acting not in defense of American idealism but in the pragmatic protection of Chinese foreign investments in these countries.

Of course the Americans will deny they are merely cops for China but after all they are in debt to China and as the old saying goes; he who pays the piper....

China cut its US Treasury-bill reserve by $3.4 billion to $797.1 billion in August, though it remained the largest foreign holder of US T-bills

When America reduces its regular armed forces in these war zones the mercenaries will be left behind to protect corporate interests not only American but Chinese.

China showed little interest in Afghanistan throughout the 20^th century but its growing energy and natural resource demand combined with increasing Afghan openness to foreign investors have alerted Beijing of the country’s potentials. This growing interest was particularly manifested with Beijing’s giant $3.5 billion investment in Afghanistan’s Aynak copper field late last year, the far largest foreign direct investment in Afghanistan’s history. Reports from Kabul also indicate that additional Chinese investments are underway. Although these investments may be the engine in Afghanistan’s economy, the Chinese piggy-backing on ISAF’s stabilization effort is bound to be unpopular in the U.S. and Europe, though not necessarily with the Afghan government.

America fights, China profits?
In making the case for converging U.S. and Chinese interests in Afghanistan, Robert Kaplan wrote last week in a New York Times opinion piece that, "The problem is that while America is sacrificing its blood and treasure, the Chinese will reap the benefits. The whole direction of America’s military and diplomatic effort is toward an exit strategy, whereas the Chinese hope to stay and profit."

In the op-ed, titled "Beijing’s Afghan Gamble," Kaplan also noted, "China will find a way to benefit no matter what the United States does in Afghanistan. But it probably benefits more if we stay and add troops to the fight."

No doubt the discussion will boil over after James Yeager, an American geologist, and former congressman Don Ritter, who has an advanced degree in metallurgical engineering and studied in Moscow, hold a press briefing in Washington on Thursday. The event is provocatively titled, "Report on the Aynak Copper Tender in Afghanistan: How China Won and the West Lost."

China Has Great Potential To Invest In Afghanistan: Interview With First Secretary Of Afghan Embassy In China

Q: On Nov. 20 in 2008, the Afghan Industry and Mines Minister, Ibrahim Adil divulged the name of the winner in the tender for the largest Aynak copper mine. The China Metallurgical Group company, offering $3 billion, won the tender. Did this Chinese company make investments? How do you evaluate the future relations between Afghanistan and China?

A: Yes, the Chinese company has made these investments, and on July 10, the ceremony took place to mark the start of production of copper at the Aynak mine. This is the biggest investment in Afghanistan. If we take into account the number of the unused mines in Afghanistan, it will become apparent that China has huge potential for investment in Afghanistan. Along with the increase of China's influence in the region, it will serve peace and stability in the region as a whole.

Q: China and the United States are the strategic and economic rivals. What can You say about the impact of this rivalry on Afghanistan?

A: The United States and China are working closely together in Afghanistan. Currently, Afghanistan has become a center of international cooperation. China is friendly neighbor for Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an independent country and determines how to build relations with other states. On the other hand, our strategic allies support the economic development of Afghanistan and the whole region, including China.

Q: China, taking advantage of its position and opportunities, helps Afghanistan to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Is China concerned about the presence of NATO in Afghanistan?

A: China is a neighboring country that has never had problems with Afghanistan and, therefore, intends to increase cooperation with our country. China supports Afghanistan's political development. China's investment in Afghanistan's various projects can testify this fact. We invite China to invest. Creating a "trade corridor" will further develop relations.

With regard to the NATO presence, I can say that the alliance troops are in Afghanistan under the UN Security Council resolutions. China is also a member of the UN Security Council. As to China's concern about the presence of NATO in Afghanistan, I can say that we do not feel such concern. China supports the presence of international forces in Afghanistan because it actively fights against terrorism, which is a threat throughout the region.

Global Implications of China’s Big Investment in Iraq and Afghanistan

Helena Cobban

This article assesses the significance of China’s recently announced investments in large copper and oil development in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, with potential significance not only for development and peace in the two war-torn nations, but also for China’s global role and the US-China relationship. With foreign and domestic investment in both nations barely trickling in despite UN, World Bank, NATO and US efforts, the Chinese plans are highly significant.

They are indicative not only of China’s aggressive search for energy and resource development opportunities, but also of a shift in US goals in the two countries: while all signs pointed to earlier US attempts to monopolize control of Iraqi oil for American companies, under present strategic conditions, the US appears to more than welcome the Chinese initiative.

Chinese firms eye Iraq oil fields

2009-10-09 10:45 BJT

Oil contracts could spell a win-win situation for both China and Iraq. The contract for Rumaila is key to Iraqi plans to breathe new life into a sector rich in reserves, but desperate for foreign cash to overhaul broken down facilities and obsolete practices. While Chinese oil giants are seizing the opportunity to invest and expand overseas.

Iraq has proven crude reserves of 115 billion barrels, ranking number three in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran. But among the 80 oil fields, only 20 have been developed. Iraq opened its oil fields to foreign companies for the first time in June this year, putting six oil fields and two gas fields on auction. Many bidders turned up. But with many put off by instability in local security, only Rumaila found partners.

The Iraqi government says the second round of bidding for oil contracts is due in the first half of December. And the government says it's committed to offering better security and all facilities needed for investments by foreign companies. Meanwhile, Chinese oil giants are also expanding investment in the country. Earlier this year, China's largest oil refiner Sinopec bought Addax Petroleum for about seven-and-a-quarter billion US dollars, to secure the Swiss oil explorer's high-potential oil blocks in West Africa and Iraq.

Iraq cabinet ratifies oil deals

The Rumaila project aims to increase output at the field by 2m barrels a day

Iraq's cabinet has ratified a deal with two foreign energy companies to develop the giant southern oilfield in Rumaila.

The contract with Britain's BP and CNPC of China is the first major deal with foreign firms to be signed since an international auction in June.

Iraqi crude deal 'boost' for China's oil security quest

The successful joint bid by BP and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) to develop an oilfield in Iraq has offered unique opportunities for the Chinese company to tap crude reserves in the oil-rich nation, analysts said yesterday.

But domestic oil producers should prepare themselves well for any uncertainties in the war-torn country, which boasts of the third-largest oil reserves in the world, they added.

Iraq on Tuesday made its first auction of major oil contracts since the 2003 US-led invasion. A consortium by BP and CNPC was finally awarded a contract to develop the Rumaila oilfield, the largest of six oil and two natural gas fields in the bidding.

The BP-CNPC group beat a bid from a consortium by Exxon Mobil and Malaysia's Petronas for the oilfield. It was the only successful bid in Tuesday's auction.

Besides CNPC, China's two other oil majors, Sinopec and CNOOC also took part in Tuesday's auction.

Rumaila is the workhorse of Iraq's oil sector, with a current capacity of 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) out of Iraq's total national output of 2.4 million bpd.

With a foothold in Iraq, China can diversify its oil supplies to enhance energy security, said Lin Boqiang, professor, Xiamen University, adding that the consortium model can reduce risks both for BP and CNPC.

China, which became a net oil importer 16 years ago and which relies on imported oil for nearly half its requirement currently, has already seen domestic production peaking, said Lin. "The increase in China's oil consumption in future may all come from overseas oil reserves."

SEE:

China Burps Greenspan Farts Dow Hiccups

China: The Triumph of State Capitalism

China No Longer Red Nor In The Red

US vs China for Global Hegemony

Neo-Liberal State Capitalism In Asia


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
China, US, Communism, Capitalism, State-Captialism, Monopoly, Trade, WTO,
Aid, development, CATO, China, Afghanistan, P3, state-capitalism, capitalism, industrialization, banks, IMF,

Support War Resisters

Canada has a tradition of welcoming American Draft Dodgers and War Resisters now that is being challenged by the Harper Government and its courts.

Canada to deport first US deserter of Iraq war

War Resisters: Canada Turns Back on Trudeau Legacy

But there is good news, the NDP have brought a motion in the house to allow Iraqi War Resisters to stay in Canada.

BREAKING NEWS - YOUR HELP STILL NEEDED

To members of Save U.S. Soldier Corey Glass - Keep Him in Canada!

Breaking News: Parliament Debates Motion to Allow Iraq War Resisters
to Stay

On May 29th, following a motion put forward by NDP MP Olivia Chow,
Parliament began debating a motion in support of Iraq war resisters.

The debate lasted for 3 hours with all three opposition parties
speaking strongly in favour of the motion.

The Tories tried to derail the motion by procedural means but their
attempt was defeated by a vote of 121-97.

WE STILL NEED YOU!!!

With the debate now completed, a vote on the motion will take place
on Monday, June 2nd.

Call and email Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley
today!
phone 613.996.4974
fax 613.996.9749
email finley.d@parl.gc.ca and finled1@parl.gc.ca

Tell her you want her to
• rescind the deportation order against US war resister Corey Glass
• support US war resisters, not Bush's war in Iraq
• support the motion to allow Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada

Call and email Prime Minister Stephen Harper!
phone 613.992.4211
fax 613.941.6900
email pm@pm.gc.ca

Tell him you want the Government of Canada to
• rescind the deportation order against US war resister Corey Glass
• support US war resisters, not Bush's war in Iraq
• support the motion to allow Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada

Call Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion at 613.996.6740 or 613.996.5789

Tell him you want the Liberal Party...
• to support the Parliamentary motion to allow Iraq War resisters to
remain in Canada,
• to oppose the deportation of people of conscience who have resisted
an illegal war, and
• to support the will of the Canadian people, not Stephen Harper’s
decision to deport war resisters, and not the U.S.’s war agenda.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, US, draft-dodgers, war resisters, AWOL, Iraq, war, peace, WRI, War Resisters League

McCain Presumptious

Well Bomb, Bomb Iran McCain made it official last night he is the presumptive Republican candidate for President. And Mike Huckabee gave him his crown of thorns by bowing out. But wait there is still another candidate who has not dropped out of the Republican race and is the thorn in McCain's side; Ron Paul.

Despite calls from his supporters, Paul insists he will not run for president as an independent. But he has pledged to continue his Republican presidential bid, knowing full well that the odds — and delegate math — are now firmly against him.

And last night McCain flip flopped on the war in Iraq. No longer is it going to be a hundred years war, but one that is concluded soon, after victory is declared and then troops moved out to fight the real war on terror; in Afghanistan. That's a major policy change. He is sounding more like Barack Obama despite having attacked him for virtually the same policy.

We are in Iraq and our most vital security interests are clearly involved there. The next president must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict that could quickly descend into genocide; destabilizing the entire Middle East; enabling our adversaries in the region to extend their influence and undermine our security there; and emboldening terrorists to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess.

The next president must encourage the greater participation and cooperation of our allies in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

See:

Ron Paul Spoiler



ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Republicans,US Presidential race, Ron Paul,
Iraq, <John McCain, Mike Huckabee,

Mitt Quits To Win Bush's War

The American Right is obsessed with using the old Nazi "stab in the back" argument to justify being wrong about Iraq. As Mitt Romney did yesterday. Romney tried to cloak his ignoble defeat in the robe of Imperial triumph appearing as the retiring Ceaser not the vanquished Republican Presidential gladiator.

Explaining his decision, he said he believed it was in the best interest of the country's national security -- he told conservatives a Democratic victory would lead to the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, defeat in the war on terrorism and future domestic terror attacks.

"If I fight on, in my campaign ... I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win," Mr. Romney said.

"Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

The much vaunted Bush War On Terror was lost the day the U.S. left Afghanistan for Baghdad, and since then it has become the Politics of Fear, which Romney stooped to use as a parting shot in his wimp out speech.

No sir he was no quitter he was doing this for the good of the party and the good of the country and the good of the war, he was a good old boy. Seems though that it did little to quell the split in the party or on the right.

For one long, uncomfortable moment, John McCain was silenced by the boos at a meeting of the influential Conservative Political Action Committee.

They erupted from the back of the ballroom at the Omni hotel in Washington, a lusty chorus of catcalls from conservatives not ready to accept they were almost certainly listening to the next Republican presidential nominee.

And what does it say of Ron Paul the Republican Presidential candidate who also opposes the Bush War and who has not dropped out of the race. I guess he too is a defeatist prepared to surrender America to her terrorist enemies. Logic was never Romney's strong suit, opportunism was.

Ron Paul tapped in to a wide array of interests, and his appeal went well beyond the simple "opposition to the war" explanation arrogant journalists favored. But let's just say he could have tapped in a lot deeper and with more lasting results. It's not like we don't need the help right about now. The country is seeing the beginnings of a real leftwing backlash and the Republicans are about to nominate a "national greatness" conservative who is in every respect the anti-Goldwater. (Good luck getting any libertarian leverage from those Paul delegates at the convention.)

After the smoke cleared at the Conservative Political Action Conference – the public withdrawal of Mitt Romney from the Republican presidential race, and the attempt of John McCain to make friends with the party’s staunchest conservatives – a conservative crowd-pleaser stepped forward .

Ron Paul, the Republican representative from Texas.

Paul was playing on the frustrations in this hall, with many voicing worries about McCain, the all-but annointed nominee.

Now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Sen. Russ Feingold – on campaign finance reform – Paul said. And now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Ted Kennedy – on immigration – Paul said.

He raised cheers in the hall – perhaps the first genuine cheers of the day.

“If you think we can lead this country back to conservative principles… you have another thing coming, because it’s not going to happen,’’ Paul said.

“The answer is found in fiscal conservatism – live within our means,’’ he said to cheers in the hall.

“As long as a government can stir up fear, sometimes real and sometimes not real, the people are expected to do one thing, sacrifice their liberty,’’ he said to cheers.

And then there is the war in Iraq, with Paul the only one of several Republican candidates for president this year who took a stance against the war.
.
“McCain says we should stay there for 100 years if necessary – I say there is no need,’’ Paul said to more cheers in the hall.

“We campaigned in 2000 for a humble foreign policy, no policing of the world – and now we are doing the very same thing,’’ Paul said.

But this is where he started to lose his audience: “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.’’

The Paulites in the hall were happy, but the rest of the crowd was starting to part ways with a Republican who has sharply parted ways with most of the candidates.

Romney was never the real conservative contender against McCain, Mr. Slick was just another liberal in conservative clothing. The real conservative contender is still in the race; Mike Huckabee. Watch conservative voters swing to him not Ron Paul despite the illusions held by his followers.

However the party establishment and the Conservative Political Establishment won't, most rank and file Republicans will hold their noses and support McCain. While those who remain McCain's critics will remain ineffectual offering no alternative since they backed Romney. And that will put them between a rock and a hard place, as the impact of their denunciations will give the conservative base of the party no alternative but Huckabee.

While the pundits like Chris Matthews, see Romney's quitting as giving McCain his coronation as the Republican Presidential nominee, it ain't over yet. And the divisiveness on the right will not be quelled by Romney's absence. The right and the Republican party is irreparably split.

"I will not vote for John McCain and it is our belief that he will destroy the Republican party," Vincent Chiarello, a retired foreign service officer from Virginia, told Al Jazeera. "I'd rather vote Democrat."

At a Friday campaign stop in Denver, the Texas Republican Congressman spoke to a standing room only crowd of 2,000 supporters-nearly double the number that came out earlier in the day to cheer on ordained front-runner Mitt Romney.

Paul’s speech was greeted with the eagerness of a religious revival. One supporter broke down in tears at the microphone as she described Paul as her “hero.” Sitting next to me in the front row was a 61-year-old lifelong Republican. She said she had never missed an opportunity to vote in her four decades of eligibility. Without Dr. Paul (this is how the obstetrician’s supporters affectionately refer to him) she said she would have sat this election out. She says she is most motivated by his anti-war stance. When greeted by a 20-something activist, they both nod in unison about their frustration with the drug war.

The interaction is a familiar one. This is not your father’s Republican party.

Dred-locked hippies stand united with Christian homeschoolers. Democrats and independents also pepper the crowd, proclaiming our need for renewable energy initiated within the private sector. There are no staged applause lines. On multiple occasions, an impromptu chant begins, “Ron Paul Revolution! Give us back our Constitution!” On stage, Paul is greeted by a drum line dressed as Revolutionary War soldiers.

The Democrats will continue to have the advantage, because even if McCain is now the presumptive candidate, the media will focus increasingly on the horse race that is on between Clinton and Obama. This is an advantage not a disadvantage in particular for Obama who can now make the case that only he can defeat McCain as national polls have shown.






ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Republicans,US Presidential race, Mitt Romney,
Mormon, Mormonism is a cult,
presidential elections 2008,
John McCain, Mike Huckabee,

And They Won Both World Wars Too

Americans claim that without them the Allies would not have won WWI or WWII of course they joined the battle late, in the final years of both wars, but the attitude remains. America won the War. Whether it was Texas Rangers in Germany or Navajo Code Talkers in the Pacific.

Now of course we have them announcing that frankly they can win the war in Afghanistan without us. Guess we can leave.

Mr. Gates said: "Our guys in the east, under [American Major-General David] Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat. But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with." The Los Angeles Times story develops this idea, quoting a senior U.S. military veteran of Afghanistan as saying NATO forces are "taking on a Soviet mentality ... They're staying in their bases in the south, they're doing very little patrolling, they're trying to avoid casualties, and they're using air power as a substitute for ground infantry operations, because they have so little ground infantry."

Their record of success in counter insurgency wars is very public. Let's see Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Angola,Nicaragua, nope no real victories there. Perhaps Chile, but that was a CIA funded coup. So it doesn't count. I know the invasion of Grenada and then Panama. Whew knew they had success somewhere.

No wait those weren't counter insurgencies they were invasions. The population was not mobilized in opposition to those invasions. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are still fighting insurgents.

Yep send in the marines. But make sure that they are using the British Guide to Counter Insurgency in Malaysia, circa the 1950's. Which is what their counterinsurgency strategy is based on.

In any event, the American army and marines have produced a new counter-insurgency manual. One of its authors, General David Petraeus, is now in charge of the “surge” in Iraq. It may be too late to turn Iraq round, and Afghanistan could slide into greater violence. But the manual offers some comfort: it says counter-insurgency operations “usually begin poorly”, and the way to success is for an army to become a good “learning organisation”.

According to Mao's well-worn dictum, guerrillas must be like fish swimming in the “water” of the general population. T.E. Lawrence, helping to stir up the Arab revolt against Turkish rule during the first world war, described regular armies as plants, “immobile, firm-rooted, nourished through long stems to the head”. Guerrillas, on the other hand, were like “a vapour”. A soldier, he said, was “helpless without a target, owning only what he sat on, and subjugating only what, by order, he could poke his rifle at”.

Western armies have unsurpassed firepower, mobility and surveillance technology. Guerrillas' main weapons are agility, surprise, the support of at least some sections of the population and, above all, time. The warren of Iraqi streets and the fortified compounds of Afghanistan compensate for the insurgents' technological shortcomings. The manual, however, attempts to change the army mindset: in fighting an enemy “among the people”, it says, the central objective is not to destroy the enemy but to secure the allegiance of the citizenry. All strands of a campaign—military, economic and political—have to be strongly entwined.

Much of this thinking is drawn from the British experience in Malaya, but conditions today are vastly different. In Templer's day, securing “hearts and minds” did not mean just acting with kindness to win the people over; it also included coercion. Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese, among whom the insurgents mainly operated, were uprooted and moved into guarded camps known as “new villages”, where they were offered land. If the British could not find the fish, they resorted to removing the water.

None the less Afghanistan is Bush's mess, left behind in the rush to invade Baghdad. Laying the blame for military failure in Kandahar at the foot of NATO when your own nation has the vast majority of troops and fire power is simply passing the buck.And a failure to follow advice already given you.

A general hits out

Gates' criticism draws heavily from a recent study authored by the US general who commanded the forces in Afghanistan from October 2003 until May 2005, Lieutenant General David W Barno, in the prestigious journal Military Review. Barno is an influential voice in the US defense community. He chose to begin his paper devoted to the counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, citing lines by ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu, "Strategy without tactics is the slowest road to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

Barno claimed the US counter-insurgency strategy during his period produced "positive and dramatic" results. He gave the "center of gravity" in his strategy to the Afghan people and not the "enemy". He kept in view the Afghan people's "immense enmity to foreign forces" and deduced that eschewing the "Soviet attempt at omnipresence" in Afghanistan, only through a "light footprint approach" instead, could the war be successfully fought.

Barno wrote that Afghan people's tolerance for a foreign presence was "a bag of capital [that was] finite and had to be spent slowly and frugally" and, therefore, under his charge US forces took great care to avoid Afghan casualties, detainee abuse, or transgressions in observance of respect to tribal leaders or causing offence to traditional Afghan culture.

Second, Barno outlined that he and the then-US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, bonded as a team and they had a "unity of purpose" in ensuring perfect interagency and international-level coordination. According to Barno, the slide began in mid-2005 after he and Khalilzad were reassigned. Washington then decided to publicly announce that NATO was assuming responsibility for the war and that the US was making a token withdrawal of 2,500 troops.

"Unsurprisingly, this was widely viewed in the region as the first signal that the United States was 'moving for the exits', thus reinforcing long-held doubts about the prospects of sustained American commitment. In my judgement, these public moves have served more than any other US actions since 2001 [the fall of the Taliban] to alter the calculus of both our friends and our adversaries across the region - and not in our favor."

Barno implied NATO messed up the top-notch command structure he created. The result is, "With the advent of NATO military leadership, there is today no single comprehensive strategy to guide the US, NATO, or international effort." Consequently, he says, the unity of purpose - both interagency and international - has suffered and unity of command is fragmented, and tactics have "seemingly reverted to earlier practices such as the aggressive use of airpower".

Barno makes some chilling conclusions. First, he says the "bag of capital" representing the tolerance of Afghan people for foreign forces is diminishing. Second, NATO narrowly focuses on the "20% military dimension" of the war, while ignoring the 80% comprising non-military components. Third, the "center of gravity" of the war is no longer the Afghan people but the "enemy". Fourth, President Hamid Karzai's government is ineffectual "under growing pressure from powerful interests within his administration". Fifth, corruption, crime, poverty and a burgeoning narcotics trade have eroded public confidence in Karzai. Finally, "NATO, the designated heir to an originally popular international effort, is threatened by the prospects of mounting disaffection among the Afghan people."

Barno sidesteps the ground realities. The US strategy's real failure happened, in fact, in the 2003-2005 period when he was in charge of the war. Of course, the failure was not at the military level, but at the political and diplomatic level. That was a crucial phase when the window of opportunity was still open for a course correction over the Taliban's exclusion from the Afghan political process. The Taliban should have been invited to come in from the cold and join an intra-Afghan dialogue and reconciliation. The extreme emotions of 2001 had by then begun to ebb away.

On the contrary, Khalilzad's diplomatic brief was that the US presidential election of 2004 was the priority for the White House. The "war on terror" in Afghanistan was a milch cow in US domestic politics. Presidential advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney shrewdly calculated that an enemy in the Hindu Kush was useful for the Republican Party campaign, while resonance of the booming guns in Afghanistan would be a good backdrop for election rhetoric against a decorated war veteran like John Kerry.

And, showcasing of Karzai in Kabul's presidential palace helped display Afghanistan as a success story. A victorious Karzai indeed landed in the US to a hero's welcome from George W Bush on election eve. Bush went on to win a second term, but the Afghan war was lost. The slide began by mid-2005 as the embittered Taliban began regrouping. As the year progressed, as Everts and many others pointed out, the Iraq war "sucked the oxygen away from Afghanistan". How could Gates possibly admit all that? He would rather NATO take the blame. But then, it is a sideshow in actuality.

Instead of using outdated tactics from the Cold War or quoting Sun Tzu perhaps the American Military and its NATO Allies need to read Machiavelli's; The Prince.

But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it. And it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength. And one's own forces are those which are composed either of subjects, citizens, or dependants; all others are mercenaries or auxiliaries.

A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.

Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.

Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a natural want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them, especially of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in prosperity you honour yourself, in adversity you have not to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it is a token that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you, and a prince ought to guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him.

Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.

That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself, and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty. For this reason a prince ought to have two fears, one from within, on account of his subjects, the other from without, on account of external powers. From the latter he is defended by being well armed and having good allies, and if he is well armed he will have good friends, and affairs will always remain quiet within when they are quiet without, unless they should have been already disturbed by conspiracy; and even should affairs outside be disturbed, if he has carried out his preparations and has lived as I have said, as long as he does not despair, he will resist every attack, as I said Nabis the Spartan did.

But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are disturbed he has only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for him to accomplish, as I said above at length. And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a prince always expects to please them by his removal; but when the conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have the courage to take such a course, for the difficulties that confront a conspirator are infinite. And as experience shows, many have been the conspiracies, but few have been successful; because he who conspires cannot act alone, nor can he take a companion except from those whom he believes to be malcontents, and as soon as you have opened your mind to a malcontent you have given him the material with which to content himself, for by denouncing you he can look for every advantage; so that, seeing the gain from this course to be assured, and seeing the other to be doubtful and full of dangers, he must be a very rare friend, or a thoroughly obstinate enemy of the prince, to keep faith with you.

And, to reduce the matter into a small compass, I say that, on the side of the conspirator, there is nothing but fear, jealousy, prospect of punishment to terrify him; but on the side of the prince there is the majesty of the principality, the laws, the protection of friends and the state to defend him; so that, adding to all these things the popular goodwill, it is impossible that any one should be so rash as to conspire. For whereas in general the conspirator has to fear before the execution of his plot, in this case he has also to fear the sequel to the crime; because on account of it he has the people for an enemy, and thus cannot hope for any escape.

For this reason I consider that a prince ought to reckon conspiracies of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody. And well-ordered states and wise princes have taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation, and to keep the people satisfied and contented, for this is one of the most important objects a prince can have.

There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependants, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.

Princes, especially new ones, have found more fidelity and assistance in those men who in the beginning of their rule were distrusted than among those who in the beginning were trusted. Pandolfo Petrucci, Prince of Siena, ruled his state more by those who had been distrusted than by others. But on this question one cannot speak generally, for it varies so much with the individual; I will only say this, that those men who at the commencement of a princedom have been hostile, if they are of a description to need assistance to support themselves, can always be gained over with the greatest ease, and they will be tightly held to serve the prince with fidelity, inasmuch as they know it to be very necessary for them to cancel by deeds the bad impression which he had formed of them; and thus the prince always extracts more profit from them than from those who, serving him in too much security, may neglect his affairs. And since the matter demands it, I must not fail to warn a prince, who by means of secret favours has acquired a new state, that he must well consider the reasons which induced those to favour him who did so; and if it be not a natural affection towards him, but only discontent with their government, then he will only keep them friendly with great trouble and difficulty, for it will be impossible to satisfy them. And weighing well the reasons for this in those examples which can be taken from ancient and modern affairs, we shall find that it is easier for the prince to make friends of those men who were contented under the former government, and are therefore his enemies, than of those who, being discontented with it, were favourable to him and encouraged him to seize it.

Some may wonder how it can happen that Agathocles, and his like, after infinite treacheries and cruelties, should live for long secure in his country, and defend himself from external enemies, and never be conspired against by his own citizens; seeing that many others, by means of cruelty, have never been able even in peaceful times to hold the state, still less in the doubtful times of war. I believe that this follows from severities being badly or properly used. Those may be called properly used, if of evil it is lawful to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one's security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves.

Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.

And above all things, a prince ought to live amongst his people in such a way that no unexpected circumstances, whether of good or evil, shall make him change; because if the necessity for this comes in troubled times, you are too late for harsh measures; and mild ones will not help you, for they will be considered as forced from you, and no one will be under any obligation to you for them.

SEE

Afghanistan A Failed State

Job Protection for Canadian Reservists

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school

Yezedi In America

I came across this interesting article on the Yezedi, ethnic Kurdish 'Satanists', in Nebraska. Yes Virginia there are ethnic Satanists in America. But not the kind you think. They don't refer to themselves as Satanists. And in fact they are an earlier tradition of the Gnostic religions of the region.

The Yezedi of Lincoln, Nebraska

Avishay Artsy

DECEMBER 8, 2007

When you come up to the north side of a grey duplex, it looks like any other home in this working-class Lincoln neighborhood.

But step inside, and you find men with beards and mustaches sitting cross-legged on pillows and smoking cigarettes. Kawil Hassan offers me a steaming cup of sweet Iraqi tea. He's the unofficial leader of the Yezidi community here, and right now they're all getting ready to celebrate their big holiday.

The Yezidis call their God Ezid, and this week's holiday is also called Ezid. Yezidis say it's to remember when Ezid appeared to them as a bright light in the sky, around 6,000 years ago. That places the founding of their religion well before the Judeo-Christian tradition. This year, Ezid starts at three a.m. on Tuesday with an early meal, followed by a short nap. Kawil's daughter Layla says they won't eat or drink again until sundown.

"We get up around seven a.m., before the sun comes out, and wash our face and pray, she explains, as her father recites the prayer in Kurdish.

Kawil recites the names of the seven angels and their leader, the Peacock Angel. For three days, the Yezidis will fast and pray, asking for forgiveness and for peace. They haven't seen much of the latter. The Yezidis are a religious minority in a rough part of the world, and they keep count of all the times they've been invaded throughout history. Things didn't get any better under Saddam Hussein. Around the time Layla was born, 19 years ago, her father and several other Yezidi men were rounded up by Iraqi police. They put Kawil Hassan in prison for 45 days. There, he says he was beaten, shocked with electrified cables and immersed headfirst in ice-cold water.

"They thought that we were too religious, too connected to our religion, and they would find any excuse to take us, Layla says.

When the first Gulf War broke out two years later, Saddam Hussein began forcing Yezidi men to join his army. Kawil decided to make a run for it. He and his family hid in caves until they could make it across the border into Syria. They lived there for seven years, in a United Nations refugee camp. Layla remembers it well.

"They brought us blankets and they would help us, but still, we didn't have a future… The bread that they brought us was full of bugs and stuff, she says.

They didn't forget their religion and traditions. They still fasted for three days on Ezid.
On the fourth day, Layla and the other children would sing, and dance, and collect candy from the other Yezidis.

"I would get up early in the morning, take one of the bags that we'd get from the store, and visit every camp that was in the village, and I would visit it and ask for candy, she recalls.

Layla's family made it to the U.S. in 1998. But their problems didn't go away. It's hard for them to explain their religious restrictions to people in Lincoln. They don't wear the color blue, because they believe it offends God. They don't eat lettuce. And on the rare occasion their religion makes the news, it's because of something horrible. On one day last August, suicide bombers killed about 300 Yezidis in northwest Iraq. Kawil Hassan watched the coverage on TV and says it was like reliving a nightmare.

Then I came across this comment in another post on the Yezedi. Which helps explain the popular misconception that they are 'Satanists'.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I was at my father's house surfing through his dead tree collection (his library) and I came across a book called Jadoo (1957) an autobiographical work by paranormal researcher John Keel (of Mothman Prophecies fame) and one chapter in that book is entitled "An invitation from the Devil" and is about time he spent among the Yezedi in Iraq.

According to Keel, the Yezedi are highly secretive and will not openly talk about their religion - devil worship - but from glimpses he gathered of it, it is primarily motivated by fear. The Yezedi do believe in God, but do not worship him, having the belief that God is supremely benevolent so no harm can come from not worshipping him. The Devil, on the other hand, being evil, must be kept sated or bad things will happen. They even forbid spitting on the ground to keep from offending Satan, who to them lives underground.

Strangely enough, Keel reported that the Yezedi he encountered all wanted him to stress to others that they were a peaceful people that just wanted to be left alone, that "Satan would take care of them."

It's a interesting read, I hope you can find the book in a library or online somewhere.

That and references by Anton LaVey to them in his Satanic Bible which may have been influenced by John Keel's book Jadoo. Much like tales of Zombies in Haiti were influenced by journalist and occultist William Seabrook's; Magic Island.

As a distant religious belief, many non-Yazidi people have written about them, and ascribed facts to their beliefs that have dubious historical validity. For example, horror writer H. P. Lovecraft made a reference to "... the Yezidi clan of devil-worshippers" in his short story "The Horror at Red Hook". The Yezidis have also been claimed as an influence on Aleister Crowley's Thelema. More notably, Anton Lavey drew upon the Yezidis for his own philosophy, LaVeyan Satanism, (e.g. The Law of the Trapezoid) in the "Satanic Bible" and "Satanic Rituals". In addition; The Order of the Peacock Angel, an obscure secret society based in the London suburb of Putney loosely based its rites on Yezidi beliefs as well.

in The Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey refers to the Yazidi as "a sect of Devil worshippers", and interprets their beliefs as follows:

They believe that God is all-powerful, but also all-forgiving, and so accordingly feel that it is the Devil whom they must please, as he is the one who rules their lives while here on earth.

Keel was apparently followed in the footsteps of P.B. Randolph who also got a mysterious invitation from the Sheik Baba, of the Yezedi to learn of their ways. Unlike Randolph who was an accomplished magickian and occultist, Keel was an accomplished stage magician and skeptic who from his experiences became a believer in the paranormal.


The Yezedi's creation mythos sounds strikingly familiar perhaps because their deity Malek Taus has been mistaken for the Fallen Angel of Judaeo-Christian-Isalmic mythology.

No one knows exactly how many Yezedis are left in the world though it’s estimated that 100,000 live here in northwestern Iraq, along the Sinjar Mountains.

The Yezedis are an insular people who have their own customs. They never wear the color blue or eat lettuce.

They have kept their religion alive through oral history and have falsely come to be known as devil worshippers because they are followers of the fallen angel, Lucifer.

The Yezedis, however, believe Lucifer was forgiven by God and returned to heaven. They call him Malek Taus (the peacock king) and pray to him. They do not ever use the word “Satan.”

Yezidi Creation Legend

The Yezidi (Yazidi) cosmology and religion is non-dual. They thus acknowledge an inactive, static and transcendental God who created, or "became", Seven Great Angels, the leader of which was Tawsi Melek, the Peacock "King" or Peacock "Angel".

Leading up to the creation of the cosmos, many Yezidis believe that the Supreme God was originally "over the seas", a notion reminiscent of the Biblical passage: "And the Spirit of God (as seven Elohim) moved upon the face of the waters." While playing with a white pearl, state the Yezidis, their Supreme God cast it into this cosmic sea. The pearl was broken and served as the substance from which the Earth and other planets and stars came into being.

The Supreme God then created or manifested a vehicle for completing the creation of the universe. This was the first and greatest angel, Tawsi Melek, the Peacock Angel. Since Tawsi Melek embodied the power and wisdom of the Supreme God he was easily able to know and carry out His bidding. Six more Great Angels were then created to assist Tawsi Melek in his work.

Soon after the Earth was created it began to shake violently. Tawsi Melek was then dispatched to Earth to stop the planet's quaking, as well as to endow it with beauty and abundance. When Tawsi Melek descended to Earth, he assumed the form of a glorious peacock - a bird full of the seven primary and secondary colors. Landing in a place now known as Lalish, Tawsi Melek transferred his peacock colors to the Earth and endowed it with a rich flora and fauna.

Tawsi Melek then traveled to the Garden of Eden to meet Adam. The first human had been created without a soul, so Tawsi Melek blew the breath of life into him. He then turned Adam towards the Sun, symbol of the Supreme Creator, while stating that there was something greater than a human being and it should be worshipped regularly. Tawsi Melek then chanted a prayer for all humanity to daily repeat to the Creator, and he did so in the 72 languages that were going to be eventually spoken by the 72 countries and races that were destined to cover the Earth.

Then Eve was created. But according to the Yezidis before copulating the primal couple enrolled in a kind of competition to see if either of either of them could bring forth progeny independent of the other. They both stored their seed in a sealed jar and then after an incubation period opened them. Eve's jar was opened and found to be full of insects and vermin, while inside Adam's jar was a beautiful boy-child. This lovely child, known as Shehid bin Jer, “Son of Jar,” grew quickly, married, and had offspring. His descendants are the Yezidis. Thus, the Yezidis regard themselves descendants of Adam but not Eve.

Shehid bin Jer inherited the divine wisdom that Tawsi Melek had taught his father Adam and then passed it down to his offspring, the earliest Yezidis. It is this wisdom that has become the foundation of the Yezidi religion.

And they are getting more recognition because of articles like this.

Armenia’s Yezidis in Geographical

Yezidis, Alagyaz, Aragatsotn Region, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1998

My feature article and photographs for Geographical, the magazine of the Royal Geographical Society, were meant to be published in the January 2008 edition, but now it looks like it’s already been published in the December issue. Unfortunately, the full text of the article is not available online yet, but when it is I’ll post another link and an excerpt. Until then, this is what Geographical has for now.

A people divided

Armenia’s Yezidi people practise one of the purest versions of Kurdish culture, but, as Onnik Krikorian discovers, outside forces have riven the small community.

My last published article on Yezidis in Armenia was for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and can be read online here, and many of the transcripts of the interviews I’ve done since 1998 are here. Also, until the full Geographical article can be read online, there’s plenty of posts and links to previous articles on Yezidis in Armenia and Georgia under the relevant category.

Because of America's invasion of Iraq the world now hears more about the plight of the Kurds and the Yezedi in particular not only in Iraq but in Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, etc. Unfortunately for them they are not only a persecuted ethnic minority, but a persecuted religious minority and a politically persecuted one as well as many Yezedi villages support the PKK. Which are now under attack by Turkish forces.

"The syncretic volatility of the region has only been enhanced (as
has our knowledge of these groups) by the ethnic, political and
military tensions that have waxed and waned after the "Great Game"
and most especially since the Gulf War, which brought far more
contact with the Yezidi as a result of Saddam Hussein's Kurdish
purges. Furthermore, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) has
garnered both support and antagonism from various sectors of the
Yezidi community, and many Yezidi Kurds fled the Turkish - Iraqi
border to Germany where they have their own online and print
magazine [12] - as well as a World Conference [13] to discuss the
intricacies of their metaphysics and social structure. As more
details emerge about their religious history, we may find that
cross-pollination will occur back into the western Hermetic
tradition and its own angelick cultus."
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1340/pg1/

also
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1340/pg1/
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/dossier/id985/pg1/

SEE:

The Yezedi

Satan Made Him Do It

Bulgarian Women Abused

My Favorite Muslim

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani

Antinominalist Anarchism

New Age Libertarian Manifesto

Heresy

Gnosis

Gnostic

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Yezedi, Yezidi, Yazedi, Iazadi, Iraq, Turkey, Devil-worship, Lucefer, Peacock, Gnostic, heresy, Sheik Adi, Kurds, Kurdish, Kurdistan, Zororastrian, Gurdjieff, Crowley, Lavey, Satanism, heresy, Luciferian, Lucifer, Aryan, Fire religions,
Knights Templar, Malak Tawus, Baphomet, Islam, Sufi, Sufism, el-Hallaj, Gnosticism, Burton, Tawasin, muslims, heresy, heretics,