DID THE A-BOMBS REALLY END WORLD WAR 2? WAS IT DONE TO SCARE THE SOVIETS? WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? WHO ARE THE UNSUNG HEROES?
 
Ten years ago I made a decision that would take me down a path few have ever tread. As a history and research buff, with a special interest in military Intel history, I decided to re-examine the basic "historical truths" I had been taught from scratch. The result was to discover two histories- one taught in schools based on press conferences, political bias and propaganda. The other was military history based on diplomacy, which of course includes Intel, and is very Aristotelian. Who wins or loses, who was right or wrong, is very clear in military history. Most of diplomacy is secret and is about 70% of what goes on. So when CIA, or any branch of our military Intel release info you would think it would cause historians, the media, the curious to rush in. Re-write the books. Discard the erroneous ones. Sadly the answer is no. The "pop culture" version of history remains.
 
Russia, the UK and Germany have released almost all of their World War 2 reports. We have not followed suit.
 
The Euro culture has more interest in this material than we do. Their coverage of released material, often found in THE ECONOMIST, THE GUARDIAN, THE TELEGRAPH, DER STERN, etc, is about CLASSIFIED material newly released here, covered in major spreads abroad.
 
Far less so here.
 
Our history has been so entwined with political spins that it is safe to say- from our leaders to our voters, few know the real stories anymore.
 
I decided to look into the belief we are all taught, that war with Japan ended because of the use of the Atomic Bombs. By the time of the Atomic bombs we had destroyed over 3 million Japanese civilians and had napalmed and "firebombed" into oblivion over 60 cities.
 
This was troubling for me. After wiping out over 60 cities, exactly why were the Japanese ready to give up fighting to the last man? If everyone was ready to die, napalm or atomic bombs, what difference would howthey died make? The Japanese, like the American public at this point, had no way to imagine a nuclear bomb. When Einstein conceived of the idea- most of the scientific community was against him. If scientists couldn't fathom this concept, I'm supposed to believe Japanese fishermen could?
 
Something wasn't adding up.
 
Then I heard revisionist historians say the bombing wasn't to end the war, it was to scare the Communist Soviet Union.
 
The only problem with that theory is that it was obviously thought of after the McCarthy era. Our government was in cahoots with Stalin in that they allowed hundreds of spies to infiltrate our government and refused to kick them out. We turned 200 million Europeans over to Stalin ( hundreds committed suicide in front of our consulates and embassies, begging not to be handed over to Stalin. Our government at the time couldn't understand why they wouldn't want the benefits of communism.) The U.S. still trusted Stalin blindly when the nukes were dropped.
 
So what really happened?
 
It has been said that the victors write the history- but this was said long before our internet age, and probably around the time of the invention of the printing press as well.
 
 
US Strategic Bombing Survey, in its famous report, reached the significant conclusion that Japan's capitulation in 1945 was strict matter of time-and pressure: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved," said USSBS, "it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bomb had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
 
The Emperor was rushing to the radio station to make his formal surrender known to the Japanese people. The U.S. had dropped leaflets on Japan describing the peace talks and the military was moving to capture the Emperor and hold him hostage to stop the announcement from being made. The Emperor knew he had forces that would rush to protect him, but he couldn't trust the military structure to not leak his whereabouts.
 
The Emperor knew the military would not kill him, but could kill all the civilians in the radio station and hold him indefinitely. Long enough to keep the war going and force a U.S . invasion.
 
Marquis Koichi Kido was the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and was the Emperor's closest advisor. He had decided to join the Peace Movement in Japan as did the Emperor after Okinawa. The blood bath of Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been enough. The Japanese military argued to turn the public into a militia using pitch forks, shovels anything against the invaders. Even those in government who had supported the war felt sick contemplating such warfare. It was however, impossible to speak out when military reprisals could be really painful. As in torture.
 
Okinawa. A turning point now lost in history- the most significant, we find out, battle of the war in that it led to the Japanese Emperor seeking out the peace movement! In America, we are drawn to Iwo Jima because of the flag raising photos I suppose. But Okinawa was the straw that changed the emperor's heart. The American Marines who fought there, died there, were injured some for life, ended the war. It is sad most never knew the significance of that battle.
 
They certainly had more impact than the nukes did!
 
Would the Emperor have done things differently when he made the decision to go to the peace movement? He only knew so much. The war had ended with Germany, and he had no way of knowing the Russians had made a deal with Churchill and FDR to enter the Pacific War within 60 days of the end of the war with Germany. This information was withheld from the public.
 
What follows is horrific on so many levels. The Japanese had asked to surrender to the Russians who did not tell us. They were trying to surrender when:
 
Japan's minimum peace terms were "security of the Imperial family and vindication of the national polity", referring to the continuance of the emperor system, which Japan believed to be of divine origin. (from Kido's diary in IMTFE, pg. 31148-31150).
After getting Emperor Hirohito's go-ahead for the peace plan, Kido gathered support for it from Prime Minister Suzuki, Navy Minister Yonai (the head of the Navy), and Foreign Minister Togo. Disorganized until now, the Japanese peace movement was coming out of the closet.
While Togo pressed government leaders and the emperor to seek peace, Kido met with the emperor and requested that he "directly express his desire for accelerating the peace" to the Japanese government ( Statements, Kido, no. 61476). The emperor took Kido's advice, and on June 22, 1945 Hirohito asked the government to "end the war as quickly as possible". (Statements, Togo, no. 50304; Statements , Toyoda, no. 61340; see also Butow, pg. 118-120; Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 235).
But Russia was already preparing to join the war against Japan in return for territory, as part of a deal with the Allies. Russia had no interest in helping Japan end the war before she could enter it and gain her reward.
Japan was waiting for Russia to respond to their request for negotiations before making any moves. They hoped for a reply around August 6 or 7. Instead, on August 6th an atomic bomb was dropped on the population of Hiroshima. And on the night of August 8th, Russia declared war on Japan
http://www.doug-long.com/kido.htm
 
The atomic bombs weren't meant to scare Russia about anything. They were used because we didn't know the Japanese were trying to surrender.
 
The emperor arrived at the radio station and was rushed in to record his message twice, one for each disc. Different people at the station hid the two records until it was time to be played.
 
And then the Japanese officers and their soldiers walked into the station. This was bad. Really bad.
 
Here is a very accurate version of what happened next from Wikipedia, with loads of links to back it up:
 
Late on the night of August 12, 1945, Major Hatanaka Kenji , along with Lieutenant Colonels Ida Masataka , Takeshita Masahiko, and Inaba Masao , and Colonel Arao Okitsugu, the Chief of the Military Affairs Section, spoke to War Minister Anami Korechika, hoping for his support, and asking him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would or would not help the young officers in treason. As much as they needed his support, Hatanaka and the other rebels decided they had no choice but to continue planning and to pull off the 'coup' on their own.
Hatanaka spent much of the 13th and the morning of the 14th gathering allies, seeking support from the higher-ups in the Ministry, and of course perfecting his plot. Around 9:30 on the night of the 14th, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. The Second Regiment of the First Imperial Guards had entered the palace grounds, doubling the strength of the battalion already stationed there, presumably to provide extra protection against Hatanaka's rebellion. However, Hatanaka, along with Lt. Col. Shiizaki Jiro, now convinced the commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guards, Colonel Haga Toyojiro , of their cause, and (untruthfully) that the War Minister , Army Chief of Staff , and the commanders of the Eastern District Army and Imperial Guards Divisions were all in on the plan.
Originally, Hatanaka hoped that by simply occupying the Palace, by simply showing the beginnings of a rebellion, the rest of the Army would be inspired and would rise up against the move to surrender. This philosophy guided him through much of the last days and hours, and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan, despite having little support from his superiors. Having set all the pieces into position, Hatanaka and his co-conspirators decided that the Guard would take over the Palace at 2 AM. The hours until then were spent in continued attempts to convince their superiors in the Army to join the 'coup'. At about the same time, General Anami committed seppuku, leaving a message that, "I—with my death—humbly apologize to the Emperor for the great crime." Whether the crime involved losing the war, or the coup, remains unclear.
At some time after one o'clock that morning, Hatanaka killed Lt. General Mori Takeshi , Commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, when Mori refused to side with him. Hatanaka feared that Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Lt. Col. Shiizaki and Captain Uehara Shigetaro of the Air Force Academy were also present in the room, and Uehara is presumed to have killed Lt. Col. Shiraishi Michinori, Staff Officer of the 2nd General Army. These were the only two murders of the night. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial House Ministry , and "protecting" the Emperor. The Palace police were disarmed, and all the entrances blocked; but as of yet, no one in the Imperial House Ministry was aware of what was transpiring. Over the course of the night, Hatanaka's rebels captured and detained eighteen people, including Ministry staff, and NHKworkers sent to record the surrender speech.
The rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours searching for the Imperial House Minister, the Lord of the Privy Seal, and the recordings of the surrender speech. They never found the recordings, which were hidden among pieces of bedding in an emergency cupboard. The search was made more difficult not only by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings, but also by the archaic organization and layout of the Imperial House Ministry. Many of the rooms' names were unrecognizable to the rebels. During their search, the rebels cut nearly all of the telephone wires, severing communications between their prisoners on the Palace Grounds and the outside world.
Around 3 AM, Hatanaka was informed by Lt Col Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the Palace to stop him, and that he should simply give up. Finally, seeing his plan crumbling to pieces around him, Hatanaka tried to plead with the Chief of Staffof the Eastern District Armyto be given at least ten minutes on the air (on NHKradio), to explain to the people of Japanwhat he was trying to accomplish and why. He was refused. Colonel Haga, commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guards, now discovered that the Army was not, in fact, in support of this rebellion, and he ordered Hatanaka to leave the Palace Grounds.
Just before five in the morning, as his rebellion continued its search, Major Hatanaka went to NHKstudios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime, to explain his actions. A little over an hour later, after receiving a phone call from the Eastern District Army, Hatanaka finally gave up. He gathered his officers, and walked out of the NHK studio.
By 8 AM, the rebellion was entirely dismantled, having succeeded in holding the Palace Grounds for much of the night, but ultimately failing to find the recordings. Hatanaka, on a motorcycle, and Lt. Col. Shiizaki on horseback, rode through the streets, tossing leaflets that explained their motives, and their actions.
Within an hour before the Emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11 AM, August 15, Major Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and pulled the trigger. In his pocket was found his death poem: "I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
So it wasn't the nukes that ended the war.
Why our government chose to think in a positive way towards Stalin in leiu of information they knew to the contrary- those errors (?) would set the battlefield: Cold War.
Now. Those leaflets. What about the leaflets that were telling the Japanese the 100% truth when their press wasn't? Who were those heroes?
This is the unclassified story of those heroes, I suggest you follow the link, too.
All this time the version of history of how and why the Pacific War ended- has been wrong.
The Soviets wanted a presence in the Pacific, and did not want the war to end. So they didn't tell us the Japanese were trying to surrender.
And didn't tell us after the first bomb.
Or the second bomb.
Here are the heroes, unknown to even the hard core military historian- and this is their story. Grab a brew. These are excerpts. You can read the article here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v46i3a07p.htm#top
The Office of War Information
The contributions of the Office of War Information at the end of the war in the Pacific have been cited briefly in many publications, but the full story has never been told 1OWI was responsible for using information warfare to promote distrust of Japanese military leaders, lower Japanese military and civilian morale, and encourage surrender. Information was disseminated by radio and leaflet both to the Japanese mainland and to enemy forces hidden on Allied-occupied Pacific islands.
OWI was manned by civilians and supported by military liaison personnel. The Director, Elmer Davis, reported to Secretary of State James Byrnes. Policy decisions were subject to the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, coordinated by Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Edward Barrett managed the Overseas Branch; Bradford Smith was chief of Central Pacific Operations in Honolulu; and Richard Hubert, the author's father, headed the forward area on Saipan.
Air Force B-29s flying at 20,000 feet dropped 500-pound M-16 fire bomb containers converted into leaflet casings. These opened at 4,000 feet to deploy millions of leaflets, effectively covering a whole Japanese city with information. In just the last three months of formal psychological warfare, OWIproduced and deployed over 63 million leaflets informing the Japanese people of the true status of the war and providing advance warning to35 cities targeted for destruction. 3Postwar surveys showed that the Japanese people trusted the accuracy of the leaflets and many residents of the targeted cities prepared immediately to leave their homes.
Advertising the Destruction of Hiroshima
At 2:45 a.m. on 6 August, the Allies' B-29 "Enola Gay" left the island of Tinian near Saipan. Its primary target was Hiroshima, where the 2nd Japanese Army stood poised to defend against an expected Allied invasion of their homeland. At 8:15 a.m., the "Enola Gay" destroyed Hiroshima with a single atomic bomb.
Back on Saipan, the OWI presses were turning out leaflets that revealed the special nature of Hiroshima's destruction and predicted similar fates for more Japanese cities in the absence of immediate acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam agreement. By 9 August, more than 5 million leaflets about the atom bomb had been released over major Japanese cities. The OWI radio station beamed a similar message to Japan every 15 minutes.
(flyer at site)
Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: "Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately." (See Richard S. R. Hubert, "The OWI Saipan Operation," Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v46i3a07p.htm#top
 
The amazing true story of how the pen ended the Japanese will to fight- and got the people to trust them over their own government controlled press- simply by telling the truth!

On July 29, 2008, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported that, according to "highly reliable sources," Iranian authorities had begun construction of a secret nuclear reactor in the Al-Zarqan region close to the city of Ahwaz in southwest Iran, on the Iran-Iraq border.
  
The paper said that according to sources, Iran was working to distance its nuclear installations from international oversight. The English version of the report, published in the Kuwaiti Arab Times, said, "Disclosing [that] Tehran directed international A-bomb inspectors to other places, sources warned [that] the project poses a very serious threat to international security."
  
Also according to the sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not know about this site at all, since it was not included in negotiations with Iran in Geneva held in early July.
  
According to the report, the sources said that during 2000-2003, Iran expropriated the lands and homes of thousands of Arab citizens from the Al-Zarqan region, destroying homes of thousands of Arab citizens from the Al-Zarqan region.
   
Destroyed homes, fields, orchards, and wells, and built a three-meter-high wall around the project site, which allegedly measures hundreds of kilometers. 
  
The report also said that "the construction of the reactor began with the laying of a pipeline for fresh water from the [nearby] Karoun River to the site, and the expansion of the Al-Zarqan power station."
  
Also, the sources said that "the construction works seem to be routine and do not arouse attention, but the tight security around the region is what arouses suspicions regarding the nature of the work." They added that the site is guarded by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) personnel, reflecting its importance and sensitivity.
  
Following is a summary of the Al-Siyassa report,(1) and from its English(2) version in the Kuwaiti English-language daily Arab Times, which was also published July 29, 2008.
IRGC Commander's Letter to Construction Company: Maintain Complete Secrecy
In its report, Al-Siyassa included a letter dated April 7, 2008 from the office of the assistant of IRGC commander in Al-Ahwaz city Brig. Hassan Jalaliyan, marked "highly confidential," to Mohammed Kayafir, manager of the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision, which is building the reactor. The following is a translation of the letter:
  
"From the IRGC Commander in the city of Al-Ahwas to the director in charge at the Mehab Qudus company for Construction and Supervision Mr. Mohammed Kayafir
  
"Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan 
  
"Greetings,
  
"I thank you for the good services of the Mehab Qudus company, and at the same time I must remind you of the following items:
  
"1. All construction materials must be transported from the warehouses to the construction site in top secrecy.
  
"2. As part of the doctrine of caution, we reiterate yet again that during the transport of all required materials, you must ensure that this [transport] does not arouse the suspicions of any citizen in the region through which you are moving.
  
"3. In general, it is absolutely forbidden to hire any Arabic speakers or any citizen from Khozestan in the framework of the 'Al-Zarqan Nuclear Reactor' construction project. You must ensure that all manpower, including the driver, the accountant, the warehouse manager, the laborer, the technician, or the guard, comes from the northern provinces.
  
"In conclusion, we say yet again that all the construction work in this project must be carried out under absolute secrecy.
  
"From the aide to IRGC commander in the city of Al-Ahwaz, Hassan Jalaliyan."
  
An Ideal Place to Build a Nuclear Reactor – The Local Residents Can Serve as a Human Shield
Al-Siyassa also reported that the "National Society for Arabstan State took satellite pictures of the location, which looked perfect for the construction of a secret nuclear reactor..." It added, "The site is more suitable for building a nuclear reactor than Bushehr, which is close to American bases." It noted that a nuclear power plant under construction at Darkhovin is in an open area on the main road between Ahwaz and Abadan – while the "Al-Zarqan nuclear reactor is in the middle of very highly populated areas, making it a very difficult target due to a possibility that the Iranian authorities will use civilians as human shields."
  
On January 31, 2008, the Iran Daily wrote that Iranian Atomic Energy Organization deputy head Ahmad Fayyazbakhsh had said that the nuclear power plant at Darkhovin, in southwestern Iran, would become operational in 2016.(3)
Endnotes:
(1) Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), July 29, 2008, 
http://www.alseyassah.com/news_details.asp?snapt=??????&nid=23454.
(2) Arab Times (Kuwait), July 29, 2008, http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/pagesdetails.asp?nid=20349&ccid=9 (the text has been lightly edited for clarity).
(3) Iran Daily (Iran), January 31, 2008, http://www.iran-daily.com/1386/3052/pdf/i2.pdf.

From http://memri.com

The Fannie-Freddie Fraud

Statement before the US House of Representatives on HR 3221 July 24, 2008

Madam Speaker,
For several years, followers of the Austrian school of economics have warned that unless Congress moved to end the implicit government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and took other steps to disengage the US Government from the housing market, America would face a crisis in housing. This crisis would force Congress to choose between authorizing a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and other measures increasing government’s involvement in housing, or restoring a free-market in housing by ending government support for Fannie and Freddie and repealing all laws that interfere in housing. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the recent near-collapse in investor support for Fannie and Freddie has proven my fellow Austrians correct. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, instead of ending the prior interventions in the housing market that are responsible for the current crisis, Congress is increasing the level of government intervention in the housing market. This is the equivalent of giving a drug addict another fix, which will only make the necessary withdrawal more painful.

The provision giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check to purchase Fannie and Freddie stock not only makes the implicit government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie explicit, it represents another unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ Constitutional authority to control the allocation of taxpayer dollars. While the Treasury Secretary has to file a report with Congress, the lack of any effective standards for the expenditure of funds makes it impossible for Congress to perform effective oversight on Treasury’s expenditures.

HR 3221 also takes another troubling step toward the creation of surveillance state by creating a Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. This federal database will contain personal information about anyone wishing to work as a "loan originator." "Loan originator" is defined broadly as anyone who "takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain." According to some analysts, this definition is so broad as to cover part-time clerks and real estate agents who receive even minimal compensation from "originators." Additionally, this database forced on industry will be funded by fees paid to the federal banking agencies, yet another costly burden to the American taxpayers.

Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the federal government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the Fourth Amendment support this new threat to privacy.

Finally, HR 3221 increases the federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raising of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee-jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.

by Ron Paul

Is Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'?
The mistakes of the past cannot be undone, but if we learn from them we can minimize the amount of "blowback" that continues to come at us from all directions. Alas, it appears that, no matter who wins the White House this November, a foreign policy made by those who have learned nothing and regret nothing will remain in place.
 
Two words of advice for the antiwar voter: Caveat emptor
by Justin Raimondo
Now that Barack Obama has pulled the rug out from under John McCain's "victory or death" campaign theme, with the invaluable assistance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, he's preparing the way for a surge of his own: an Afghan surge, to be precise. Averring that we need to put more troops in Afghanistan, whose U.S.-supported "president" functions as little more than the mayor of Kabul, Obama is posing earnestly next to as many uniforms as he can, hoping to establish his credentials as a plausible wartime president.
So, you thought we'd be rid of the endless "war on terrorism" once we got George W. Bush out of the White House, and ensconced a Democrat in his place? Well, think again, and get ready for an escalation of the Other War – the one in Afghanistan, a much tougher and more intractable prospect than Iraq by a longshot.
The Obama/Democratic Party line on the Middle East, in a nutshell, amounts to this: the Bush administration, through some mysterious internal malfunction, allowed itself to be "diverted" from the task of pursuing al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, and instead went after Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athists because, as Paul Wolfowitz said, "it's doable." The word "neocon" – and any references, however oblique, to the key role played by foreign lobbyists in rushing us into war – never passes the candidate's lips. After all, that would be "divisive."
Aside from glossing over the history of our most recent involvement in the Middle East, however, Obama's prescription for more troops in the Afghan theater promises a disaster potentially far more serious than the one perpetrated by his predecessor in Iraq. At least Iraq, for all its horrific casualties and costs, was "doable." Afghanistan isn't. The Soviets discovered this, to their sorrow, in the 1980s, as did the Brits in 1842. Neither ever succeeded in subduing this proud and tough-minded people, as the British historian Sir John Keegan pointed out in a 2001 piece for the Telegraph:
"Efforts to occupy and rule [Afghanistan] usually ended in disaster. But straightforward punitive expeditions … were successful on more than one occasion.

"It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Kandahar' was one of [Queen] Victoria's most celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their efforts was predictable.…

"America should not seek to change the regime, but simply to find and kill the terrorists. It should do so without pity."

The smoke was still rising from the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as Keegan's article saw print, and today the prospects of a "punitive expedition" are about as dim as the hope of establishing a Jeffersonian republic in that tortured terrain. The time for such an effort has long since passed. Bush botched it, and, unlike Hollywood, history doesn't allow second takes. Bin Laden and his confreres have since spread far and wide, recruiting an entirely new generation of jihadists – with the invaluable help of our own policymakers, who have given the terrorist icon plenty of grist for his mill.
U.S. efforts in Afghanistan have been marked by alternate bouts of unmitigated brutality and do-gooder social engineering, often occurring simultaneously. I've lost count of the number of times we've "mistakenly" bombed a wedding party or even the Afghan police, denied it, and then later on sheepishly admitted our error, attributing it to "the fog of war." This has happened so many times that President Hamid Karzai has raised the subject in public, his anger palpable. On the other hand, we've been busy on the do-gooder front, as if to make up for our deadly "errors," pushing women's rights and bringing the alleged benefits of "modernity" to the mountainous land that time forgot. Yet this effort has not been welcomed. It has been stubbornly resisted by a proud and deeply religious people, whose traditional mores and cultural history are so far removed from our own.
This sort of thing has been tried before – by the Soviets, who tried to impose land-reform measures and gender equality at bayonet point. Obama, with his idealistic "yes-we-can"-ism, seems all too likely to reattempt it. Already he's pledged to commit more money and other economic assistance, as well as more troops, to Karzai's beleaguered and deeply corrupt regime – which means more tax dollars thrown into a bottomless hole.
Furthermore, this well-meaning earnestness will boomerang in our faces, as the age-old customs of an inward-looking people are violated and the yoke of foreign rule is tightened. Out in the Afghan wilds, Kabul is just as far removed as Washington, at least figuratively, and the "country" of Afghanistan is largely a Western fiction, a geographical rather than a political or national entity that is no more unified than, say, East Africa. Tribes, clans, and sub-clans, various ethnic and regional groups and sub-groups, all with their labyrinthine histories of conflict and collaboration – it's a chaotic and often stormy mix that can't be managed or "reformed." When the NATO commander in charge of the Afghan front reiterates the West's desire to impose "democracy and good governance," one wonders what planet he's living on.
The re-invasion and occupation of Afghanistan will give President Obama a chance to highlight his hawkishness and prove himself to the War Party as a good and loyal servant. It will also allow the Democratic Party to refurbish its credentials as a tough-minded crew, ready, willing, and able to spill as much innocent blood as the GOP in establishing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. This refurbishing, however, will be short-lived, because the Afghans will be no more receptive to Obama's charms than they were to Queen Victoria's civilizing mission and Yuri Andropov's "proletarian internationalism."
It isn't just Afghanistan, however, that provides a clue as to Obama's future development as a wartime president in the tradition of Bush, Truman, and FDR: the appointment of Dennis Ross as his principal Middle East adviser is good news for the War Party, specifically for that crucial branch of it that specializes in promoting Israel's ambitions over America's national interests.
No matter which president Ross worked for, Democrat or Republican – and he's worked for both – his interventionist agenda and his sympathy for the interests of a certain Middle Eastern nation were no secret. His sympathy, too, for poor, persecuted Scooter Libby prompted him to endorse that convicted felon's defense fund. And he was right in there with Bill Kristol and the Project for a New American Century in agitating for war with Iraq.
In a future Obama administration, the so-called liberal hawks will have their chief factotum in Ross, who is presumably up for a major role in the Obama administration – perhaps national security adviser, or even secretary of state. That is good news for the tiny yet influential Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, and very bad news indeed for Obama's anti-interventionist supporters, or even just ordinary war-weary Americans. As Leon Hadar points out:
"Another contingency of liberal hawks occupies positions of influence in Washington think-tanks, including the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, where such scholar-practitioners as former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack have been cheerleaders for the Iraq War and have approved of Bush's policies on Iran and Israel. In fact, one does not have to be a veteran political observer to predict Indyk, Pollack, and other experts on the Middle East, like former peace negotiator Dennis Ross, would probably play a major role in influencing the policy of a future Democratic administration. In that case, the Democratic Party activists who rallied against Joe Lieberman should not be surprised if Bush's Democratic successor ends up pursuing policies that might be described as neoconservatism with a smiling Democratic face."
Ross acted as a front man for the government of then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the Clinton-era Oslo negotiations, poses as a "peacemaker," shamelessly promotes Israel's interests, and works for AIPAC and AIPAC-affiliated organizations yet strenuously denies there's such a creature as the Israel lobby. He is virtually the living embodiment of business-as-usual insofar as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, and his closeness to Obama – the two stood side-by-side during the candidate's Mideast tour – bodes ill for the antiwar voter shopping around for a viable candidate.
This isn't "change" – it's the same old B.S., rooted in some pretty basic misconceptions. The idea that the U.S. can "solve" – permanently and decisively – the terrorism problem is an illusion ingrained, perhaps, in the American psyche, which is fond of applying metaphors like "get the job done" to complex realities barely comprehensible to the Western mind. It's as if the making of foreign policy were like plumbing, and it's merely a matter of "fixing" things that somehow got broken. That our own policies caused this breakage in the first place, often directly, is almost never acknowledged, and when it is, the proposed "solution" is guaranteed to worsen rather than alleviate the original problem.
The mistakes of the past cannot be undone, but if we learn from them we can minimize the amount of "blowback" that continues to come at us from all directions. Alas, it appears that, no matter who wins the White House this November, a foreign policy made by those who have learned nothing and regret nothing will remain in place.
~ Justin Raimondo

 
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183

"The Right Place to Fight Terrorism... Is the [Terrorists'] Sanctuaries... in Pakistan"

Hamid Karzai: "The problem of terrorism, as it is affecting Afghanistan, is not entirely an Afghan problem. As a matter of fact, a greater part of this problem is a regional problem, and a greater part of this problem is unfortunately coming to us from Pakistan. So the Americans, the international coalition - when they say they are continuing to work in Afghanistan, and yet the security is not there, they are right, because they have not gone to the right place to fight terrorism."

Interviewer: "Which is?"

Hamid Karzai: "Which is the sanctuaries that the terrorists have in Pakistan."

Interviewer: "But Pakistan, actually, recently... I have noticed that there is a very strong declaration from the Afghan government against Pakistan. You have accused the Pakistani government of being behind your attempted assassination, the last one, and the most dangerous thing is that you have threatened that you would go behind the borders just to find Al-Qaeda, and Taliban as well, which means you will go to Pakistan. Right now, Mr. President, if you don't have the power to secure the situation in Afghanistan, do you think you have the power to go behind the border?"

Hamid Karzai: "When I said that Afghanistan would go in self defense beyond the Durand Line, [it] was in response to a statement that came from terrorist networks from Pakistan, from someone called Baitullah Mahsoud - you must have heard of him, and from someone called [Maulana] Fazlullah. They declared that they would cross the border and come into Afghanistan, to kill Afghans and the international troops. Now, for me, the president of a sovereign country - when there is a threat issued to me beyond my borders by someone, what is my responsibility?"

"When the Afghan People Decide to Defend Themselves, They Always Win"

Interviewer: "That's right, but the question is: Do you have the power? Can you do it?"

Hamid Karzai: "The power is the power of the government, of the institutions of the government, and of the people. Afghanistan is known in history - and Afghanistan has proven that in history - that when the Afghan people decide to defend themselves, they always win - as we have always won.
[...]

"Why did the international community come to Afghanistan after 9/11?"

Interviewer: "Why?"

Hamid Karzai: "Because they were threatened. The Twin Towers were blown up. A lot of innocent lives were lost. It was a great tragedy for all of us, not only for Americans, but for the whole world. Muslims died, Christians died. Every other nationality died. They felt that the source of that problem was in Afghanistan, so they all came here, first of all, to free themselves of the threats of terrorism, and in the process, to help Afghanistan to regain its independence and to rebuild. And the Afghan people joined hands with them in order to get liberated from the oppression of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Because of that, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan in less than a month and a half.
"But then, why are we still fighting terrorists? If the Afghan people are friendly and want the rest of the world to help them, then what is the problem in Afghanistan? Who is fighting the Afghan government and the international community? If the war is in Afghanistan, and if we are not winning this war, that means there is something wrong in Afghanistan, and then, in that case, it becomes an internal matter for the Afghan people.
"Therefore, we would not need the pressure of the international community in Afghanistan for our internal problems. Then, the Taliban is an internal problem of Afghanistan, and I should sit down with Mullah Omar, find him somewhere, talk to him, and resolve it.
"But if the problem has tentacles, roots, beyond the borders of Afghanistan, if the international community, the international press, and the governments say that there are sanctuaries beyond our borders, in another country, namely, in Pakistan, if the tribal territories of Pakistan are sanctuaries to terrorists, to training grounds, to suicide bombers and their training, which some officials of the government of Pakistan admit and talk about...
"In that case, it is needed, for the security of Afghanistan, for the security of Pakistan, and for the success of the international community, to wage the struggle against terrorism in the right place - that is, the sanctuaries of terrorists beyond the Afghan borders, in Pakistan.
[...]

"This war against terrorism will never be won by bombing Afghan villages. The war of terrorism is not in the Afghan villages."

Interviewer: "Is it in Pakistan?"

Hamid Karzai: "It is in the sanctuaries of terrorists."

Interviewer: "Right now, Mr. President, you are saying that the coalition forces did not do what they should do in Pakistan, while the Western media in general are actually saying: 'No, Mr. Karzai does not do the job well in Afghanistan.' So who do you think we actually should..."

"If [The International Community Says That] Karzai is Not Doing the Job Well In Afghanistan, Then [It] Is Saying That It is an Afghan Problem - [And] In That Case, [It] Has No Business in Afghanistan"

Hamid Karzai: "If Karzai is not doing the job well in Afghanistan, then the international community is saying that it is an Afghan problem. In that case, the international community has no business in Afghanistan, and they'd better leave - if it is an internal Afghan problem."

Interviewer: "But you think it is not an internal, but an international problem..."

Hamid Karzai: "It is an international problem, in which Afghanistan has been suffering the most, and unless the international community focuses in the right place... Afghanistan too is a sovereign country. If they can go with their planes and bomb Afghan villages in pursuit of terrorism, they should do the same in any other sovereign country.
[...]
"I've been trying to find the Taliban and talk to them for the past six years. This is an extremely important question. In Pakistan, the government of Pakistan can find Baitullah Mahsoud and talk to him. They can find Mullah Fazlullah and talk to him. They can find Mangal Bagh and talk to him. They can find Mullah Fazlullah and talk to him, and Mullah Omar of Pakistan, and talk to him. But where do I find the Taliban leaders to talk to them? How can I find Mullah Omar? Where is he?"

Interviewer: "Where is he, do you think?"

Hamid Karzai: "That is the question."

Interviewer: "I am asking you as the President of Afghanistan."

Hamid Karzai: "That is the question. If I know where he is, I will go and talk to him."

Interviewer: "Where do you expect him to be right now?"

Hamid Karzai: "He is not in Afghanistan."

Interviewer: "How are you so sure... You have mentioned before, Mr. President, that even Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan."

Hamid Karzai: "He is not. Surely."

Interviewer: "What is your proof?"

Hamid Karzai: "I am sure if he were here, I would have found him."