The UK Telegraph is reporting that "Al-Qaeda fighters have returned to Afghanistan and will use the country as a base to launch September 11-style attacks on Western cities."
This gem has been launched – like a lead balloon – by the American ambassador to Kabul, Ryan Crocker. The Afghan war is simply not going well for the US and NATO and the rhetoric seems increasingly self-serving.
The idea, apparently, at the State Department is that support for the war can be increased by reminding Americans they're at risk. But after a decade of war and a trillion dollars in military expenditures, weariness has set in.
This is a dominant social theme of sorts, in my view, a fear-based promotion. The power elite that apparently wants to run the world has long regarded Afghanistan as an important piece of the puzzle.
The idea is to frighten the American public into regarding the war, even after all this time, as absolutely necessary to the "safety" of the US regime and its citizens at home and abroad.
In reality, the elites seek to pacify "the navel of the world" – people and places that have rarely come under the full control of outside forces or alien invaders. But if one wants global government, every part of the planet must be pacified. Afghanistan is at the top of the list.
It has been for a century. Yes, Western elites have been at war with the Pashtuns that straddle Afghanistan and Pakistan for well over 100 years now – though Afghanistan is still not pacified. In part this is because of an alliance between the Pashtuns and the Punjabis who run Pakistan.
These are two of the oldest tribes in the world, whose roots are obscured in the mists of history. In the modern era, the Punjabis have provided shelter and support for the fighting Pashtuns (Taliban) while asserting that they are dedicated to removing the same resistance.
The result has been a standoff. The power elite has used the muscle of its transcontinental army – NATO and the US military – to flood Afghanistan with military force. The pretext was that the Taliban had assisted in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Towers. But the Pashtun/Taliban regime collapsed a decade ago, and the West fights on.
A year ago, the Pentagon announced it had found oil and expensive mineralization in Afghanistan. This was a transparent attempt to explain the West's continued military presence by implying that a triumph there would unlock vast riches that would swell Western treasuries and benefit the Afghan population besides.
But the obviousness of this gambit only points up once more the reality of the not-so-secret ambition of the elites engineering their long-desired "new world order." The issue is not one of "helping" Afghans or even looting that bleeding country's natural resources. These are merely convenient justifications.
The real agenda is one of power and control. The Afghans are scheduled to be brought into the 20th century kicking and screaming – but dragged there nonetheless. Their women are to be formally educated; their men are to serve in Western-controlled civil police entities and in a Western-style military.
The only trouble with this formulation is that the Pashtuns and Punjabis aren't going along with it. These tribes are not natural allies; there's much trouble between them when the threat from the outside world is lessened. But when faced with a common foe, they pull together. In aggregate, they constitute some 300 million people in some of the most rugged (and beautiful) terrain on the planet.
By comparison, Germany before World War II had a population of some 70 million in a country that was perhaps a quarter of the size of the current Afghan/Pak region. It took five years for the "allies" to declare victory over the Germans, and that was within the context of total war, and a wartime economy.
These are figures – and geography – that are never shared with Western populations. Were they made clear, they might concentrate minds mightily as to the enormity of the task that NATO, the US and Britain have set themselves.
And yet one could make the argument as well that at some level Western populations HAVE internalized the magnitude of the "long war" being prosecuted without their full acquiescence. Resistance continues to grow.
According to a recent article posted at CNN, support for the war continues to plunge in America itself. A CNN survey now shows that only a quarter of Americans support the war. There is also support for removing ALL troops before the 2014 deadline.
The results of the survey indicate that for the first time, a majority of those who identify themselves as Republican are opposed to a continuation of the war. Perhaps Crocker was addressing this poll when he made his remarks.
But it won't likely make a difference. The war seems lost. The most recent "rogue" attacks on civilians by allied soldiers, when coupled with the cultural clumsiness of the US and NATO regarding the symbols of Afghan/Islamic culture (burning Korans and the like) are only aggravating anti-American and anti-NATO sentiment.
It doesn't help that the US continues to use poisonous depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan that are literally (or eventually) injuring millions. Despite efforts at winning over the Afghan and Pakistani public, US and NATO forces are regarded more than ever as unenlightened interlopers. One could argue the West has overstayed its welcome by about a decade.
The longer the West remains in Afghanistan now, the worse it gets. The Taliban have apparently ceased to negotiate with NATO, emboldened by the ham-fisted approach of the allies generally. There doesn't seem to be any movement in Pakistan to shut down the Taliban's so-called safe havens in that country.
And so Western elites will resort to their transparent, fear-based promotions once more. "Our adversaries … have patience, and they know that we are short on that," Crocker warns. But after a long and bloody decade, the West generally and Americans in particular have lost patience just as the Afghan public has lost patience.
It is true, of course, that Western elites in their crazy dash toward world government have deep resources and secretly operational armies and intelligence-gathering forces. Black ops can create Western false-flags that make it appear as if the Taliban is now starting to attack Europe or America.
But this seems kind of self-defeating to us. The public is likely not going to tolerate the continuance of an endless war even if there are a handful of (potentially arranged) terrorist attacks.
At this time, the larger Western public would probably have to be convinced that there is an organized attempt to make sizeable and regular attacks on Western soil before there would be an up-swell of public opinion to prosecute the war further or more harshly.
Fear-based promotions only go so far, especially in the era of what we call the Internet Reformation. Plenty of people are aware of the increasing futility of the Afghan war based not on mainstream news reports but on what they see and read on the Internet.
The Internet's exposure of the way the world REALLY works is an increasing problem for the elites on many fronts. Questions are routinely raised now as regards numerous elite promotions. Do vaccines really do what they are said to do, or are many of them dangerous? Is the world really warming, or is this just a scare tactic? Is the war on terror really a war, or is it merely a series of false flag events?
In the 20th century, the elites had the control and resources to virtually shut down alternative points of view, certainly in the West. In the 21st century, the elites have lost control of the conversation and won't be getting it back any time soon. Scare tactics and rhetoric intended to whip the public into a frenzy against this or that imagined bogeyman are increasingly less effective today.
People are not so easily herded into any one direction. There are too many outfits focused on truth-telling rather than lies. And this evolution, one way or another, will likely continue. The Internet is a process not an episode.