News & Analysis
Unfolding Authoritarianism and the Afghan Setback
NATO to hand combat role to Afghans as it seeks way out of war... NATO will hand over the lead role in combat operations to Afghan forces across the country by mid-2013, alliance leaders said on Sunday as they charted a path out of a war that has lost public support and strained budgets in Western nations. A NATO summit in Chicago on Monday will formally endorse a U.S.-backed strategy for a gradual exit from Afghanistan, a move aimed at holding together an allied force scrambling to cope with France's decision to withdraw its troops early. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: This is merely a strategic reconfiguration.
Free-Market Analysis: For years now, we've tracked the expanding authoritarianism of the West – and in the process been subject to various labels. But lately, we have to think that our worldview doesn't look so very extreme. (Cold comfort, that.)
Just in the US (never mind Europe), the out-of-control government of Barack Obama has basically okayed an entire suspension of civil rights. At the discretion of the authorities, citizen can literally be arrested without cause for saying the wrong things at the wrong time.
Habeas corpus has been suspended and military personnel exhibit their wares and practices within the borders of the US with "terrorism" as the justification. Civil policing has been expanded into the military realm with the advent of a huge amount of military weaponry.
Drones now fly over the skies of the US – again, the presence of terrorism is being used to justify this state of affairs. And civilian policing has expanded to both summary checkpoints and summary execution. The former is provided by Homeland Security and the latter by "tasers" – a brutal form of "non-lethal" persuasion that is too-often nothing of the sort.
US authorities in the past decade have insisted that torture (waterboarding) is appropriate and necessary in certain cases and the Obama administration has insisted that it has the right to kill or capture American citizens at will and without due process if the determination is made that they are supporting "terrorism."
It all comes back to "terrorism" over and over – specifically 9/11, though the questions about 9/11 are so expansive and obvious that many of those who sat on the 9/11 Commission have virtually disavowed its work. Nonetheless, the template provided by the Commission and the 9/11 narrative itself has been used to justify the extraordinary expansion of authoritarianism in the US.
Within this context, one can make the argument that the alarming reduction of civil rights throughout the West is merely a logical reaction to an obvious "war on terror." But to do this, one has to accept the flawed narrative of 9/11 and the explanation of authorities regarding terrorism that has taken place.
Most if not all terrorist activities aimed at the US seem to have some sort of Western Intel connivance behind them. They seem more like what we call "directed history" than reality. Time and again it is shown they are staged incidents designed to provide justification for the expansion of the warfare/welfare state.
The thing is, once one goes down this path – granting its veracity – one ends up at the bottom of the rabbit hole with the idea that such massive orchestration cannot be achieved without a malevolent and active power at the very top.
We accept that this is a logical conclusion. This topmost direction, in our view, is something we call the power elite that derives its authority and bankroll from its control of fiat-money central banking around the world.
It is this group of apparent dynastic families that are determined to create global governance and is turning to increasingly authoritarian means to do so.
The US is the putative muscle of this group – and for this reason the US is the chosen vehicle to expand global governance via a variety of tax-oriented mandates that the US seeks to expand around the world.
And this is where the war on Afghanistan comes in and why it is so important.
None of the world-spanning plans of the power elite can be implemented when two countries – Afghanistan and Pakistan – remain formally un-pacified.
It is no coincidence that these two countries are formed by some of the oldest tribes in existence – the Punjabis and Pashtuns. With some 180 million between them, these two tribes are not easily brought to heel, especially given the mountainous terrain they occupy.
The British have tried twice within this last century. But now it looks as if this second (or third) attempt is also going to end in failure. Here's some more from the article above:
President Barack Obama and NATO partners want to show their war-weary voters the end is in sight in a conflict that has dragged on for more than a decade while at the same time trying to reassure Afghans that they will not be abandoned.
"There will be no rush for the exits," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said ... He sought to put up a show of unity even as France's new President Francois Hollande vowed to stick by his pledge to withdraw French troops by year's end, two years earlier than the alliance timetable.
NATO's plan is to shift full responsibility to Afghan forces for security across the country by the middle of next year and then withdraw most of the alliance's 130,000 combat troops by the end of 2014, Rasmussen said.
While foreign forces will continue to fight the Taliban and other militants as necessary - and it may be very necessary - the new mission for U.S. and NATO troops will assume a new focus on advising and supporting Afghan soldiers.
Looking toward the November presidential election, Obama - who once called the Afghan conflict a "war of necessity" but is now looking for an orderly way out - sought to dispel the notion that shaky allies will leave U.S. troops to carry the ball alone. Obama warned of "hard days" ahead as he hosted the summit in his home town, Chicago, a day after major industrialized nations tackled a European debt crisis that menaces the global economy.
A retreat is a retreat. Leaving is leaving. One can argue that the West will fight on by other means, including mercenary forces, but the Western methodology of rule involves the emplacement of a sympathetic government – and formal control by force of the regions and populations around it.
If the government has little or no control over a part of a country, then Western methodology of control is likely to fail or at least be less persuasive.
This means as well that the seamless grid of world government that the West seeks to cast over the world fails as well.
It is for this reason that the ten-year resistance of the Pashtuns and Punjabis is so momentous. Without pacification, the larger scheme for world government becomes considerably less formidable.
For one-world government to exist, the Afghans and Pakistanis MUST be pacified. That the West is discussing schemes for disengaging is a setback for the Western imperium.
Those who do believe that world-government is a disaster-in-the-making should be increasingly optimistic that this latest effort of a portion of humanity to control the world could be seen as increasingly unfeasible.
Conclusion: Afghanistan may indeed prove resistant, once again, to the plans of Leviathan.