The Day That TV News Died

I am not sure exactly when the death of television news took place.

The descent was gradual—a slide into the tawdry, the trivial and the inane, into the charade on cable news channels such as Fox and MSNBC in which hosts hold up corporate political puppets to laud or ridicule, and treat celebrity foibles as legitimate news. But if I had to pick a date when commercial television decided amassing corporate money and providing entertainment were its central mission, when it consciously chose to become a carnival act, it would probably be Feb. 25, 2003, when MSNBC took Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq

Donahue and Bill Moyers, the last honest men on national television, were the only two major TV news personalities who presented the viewpoints of those of us who challenged the rush to war in Iraq. General Electric and Microsoft—MSNBC’s founders and defense contractors that went on to make tremendous profits from the war—were not about to tolerate a dissenting voice. Donahue was fired, and at PBS Moyers was subjected to tremendous pressure. An internal MSNBC memo leaked to the press stated that Donahue was hurting the image of the network. He would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,” the memo read. Donahue never returned to the airwaves.

The celebrity trolls who currently reign on commercial television, who bill themselves as liberal or conservative, read from the same corporate script. They spin the same court gossip. They ignore what the corporate state wants ignored. They champion what the corporate state wants championed. They do not challenge or acknowledge the structures of corporate power. Their role is to funnel viewer energy back into our dead political system—to make us believe that Democrats or Republicans are not corporate pawns. The cable shows, whose hyperbolic hosts work to make us afraid self-identified liberals or self-identified conservatives, are part of a rigged political system, one in which it is impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, General Electric or ExxonMobil. These corporations, in return for the fear-based propaganda, pay the lavish salaries of celebrity news people, usually in the millions of dollars. They make their shows profitable. And when there is war these news personalities assume their “patriotic” roles as cheerleaders, as Chris Matthews—who makes an estimated $5 million a year—did, along with the other MSNBC and Fox hosts.

It does not matter that these celebrities and their guests, usually retired generals or government officials, got the war terribly wrong. Just as it does not matter that Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman were wrong on the wonders of unfettered corporate capitalism and globalization. What mattered then and what matters now is likability—known in television and advertising as the Q score—not honesty and truth. Television news celebrities are in the business of sales, not journalism. They peddle the ideology of the corporate state. And too many of us are buying.

The lie of omission is still a lie. It is what these news celebrities do not mention that exposes their complicity with corporate power. They do not speak about Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, a provision that allows the government to use the military to hold U.S. citizens and strip them of due process. They do not decry the trashing of our most basic civil liberties, allowing acts such as warrantless wiretapping and executive orders for the assassination of U.S. citizens. They do not devote significant time to climate scientists to explain the crisis that is enveloping our planet. They do not confront the reckless assault of the fossil fuel industry on the ecosystem. They very rarely produce long-form documentaries or news reports on our urban and rural poor, who have been rendered invisible, or on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or on corporate corruption on Wall Street. That is not why they are paid. They are paid to stymie meaningful debate. They are paid to discredit or ignore the nation’s most astute critics of corporatism, among them Cornel West, Medea Benjamin, Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky. They are paid to chatter mindlessly, hour after hour, filling our heads with the theater of the absurd. They play clips of their television rivals ridiculing them and ridicule their rivals in return. Television news looks as if it was lifted from Rudyard Kipling’s portrait of the Bandar-log monkeys in “The Jungle Book.” The Bandar-log, considered insane by the other animals in the jungle because of their complete self-absorption, lack of discipline and outsized vanity, chant in unison: “We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true.”

When I reached him by phone recently in New York, Donahue said of the pressure the network put on him near the end, “It evolved into an absurdity.” He continued: “We were told we had to have two conservatives for every liberal on the show. I was considered a liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone but not Dennis Kucinich. You felt the tremendous fear corporate media had for being on an unpopular side during the ramp-up for a war. And let’s not forget that General Electric’s biggest customer at the time was Donald Rumsfeld [then the secretary of defense]. Elite media features elite power. No other voices are heard.”

Donahue spent four years after leaving MSNBC making the movie documentary “Body of War” with fellow director/producer Ellen Spiro, about the paralyzed Iraq War veteran Tomas Young. The film, which Donahue funded himself, began when he accompanied Nader to visit Young in the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

“Here is this kid lying there whacked on morphine,” Donahue said. “His mother, as we are standing by the bed looking down, explained his injuries. ‘He is a T-4. The bullet came through the collarbone and exited between the shoulder blades. He is paralyzed from the nipples down.’ He was emaciated. His cheekbones were sticking out. He was as white as the sheets he was lying on. He was 24 years old. … I thought, ‘People should see this. This is awful.’ ”

Donahue noted that only a very small percentage of Americans have a close relative who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan and an even smaller number make the personal sacrifice of a Tomas Young. “Nobody sees the pain,” he said. “The war is sanitized.”

“I said, ‘Tomas, I want to make a movie that shows the pain, I want to make a movie that shows up close what war really means, but I can’t do it without your permission,’ ” Donahue remembered. “Tomas said, ‘I do too.’ ”

But once again Donahue ran into the corporate monolith: Commercial distributors proved reluctant to pick up the film. Donahue was told that the film, although it had received great critical acclaim, was too depressing and not uplifting. Distributors asked him who would go to see a film about someone in a wheelchair. Donahue managed to get openings in Chicago, Seattle, Palm Springs, New York, Washington and Boston, but the runs were painfully brief.

“I didn’t have the money to run full-page ads,” he said. “Hollywood often spends more on promotion than it does on the movie. And so we died. What happens now is that peace groups are showing it. We opened the Veterans for Peace convention in Miami. Failure is not unfamiliar to me. And yet, I am stunned at how many Americans stand mute.”

Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.

Source: Truthdig

Afghanistan – Failed War From A False Empire

What did the last decade accomplish in the occupation of Afghanistan? Other than streamlining the opium shipment trade, what did this foreign expedition achieve?Wikipedia reports, “As of December 29, 2011, there have been 2,765 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF) since the invasion in 2001.” This may seem a small number by recent loss standards, but the excuse of fighting the CIA invention and bogyman, Al Qaeda is the height of hypocrisy.Not much, comfort for the Pat Tillman family or confidence in the inept cover-up mission to silence would be whistleblowers. The convenient idiot Osama bin Laden overstayed his usefulness. Too bad that Seal Team 6 knew too much to risk their loyalty on future escapades. The sick foreign policy that orders the ritual killings of their own military trained assassins offers up their heroes as necessary sacrifices for the New World Order.

The Insider provides several mainstream media references in the article; CIA created al-Qaeda and gave $3 BILLION to Osama bin Laden. “The US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan during the cold war. With a huge investment of $3,000,000,000 (three billion US dollars), the CIA effectively created and nurtured bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network using American tax-payers money.”The definitive source in opposition to the Afghanistan debacle, antiwar.com is invaluable. Back in 2009, Philip Giraldi wrote inThe Cost of War:

“Why are these wars so expensive? The main supply route starts in Karachi, Pakistan, and works its way up through the Khyber Pass, at which point the truck convoys are frequently attacked by insurgents. When a convoy is destroyed the US Army assumes the loss as no one will insure such a perilous enterprise. Sometimes the trucking companies pay off the attackers to be left alone, ironically putting US taxpayer-provided money into the hands of those seeking to kill American soldiers.

The Pentagon estimates that the cost of fuel delivered to the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq averages $45 per gallon, including all expenses but excluding legacy costs like interest on borrowing money to buy the fuel in the first place.

A total of one trillion dollars has been spent already in Iraq and in Afghanistan but legacy costs to include paying off the money that was borrowed and medical care for the many thousands of wounded soldiers and marines will drive the total cost of the war past the $5 trillion dollar mark even if the two wars were to end tomorrow.”

 

Over two years ago, a video entitled,  provided a visual account of the “so called” progress on the ground. The NeoCon “chicken hawks” will dismiss the losses as regrettable but necessary. That is the basic issue. What is essential about keeping foreign legions on distant soils when the cause for such deployment is based upon a false premise? As long as the phony war on terror is used to wage aggressive warfare and maintain a permanent garrison presence, victory will never bring national security.The conflict between using military combat forces and private contractors for implementing search and destroy operations poses a serious issue. While both are voluntary participants, the public would want to deny that each is a mercenary. Separated by the pay scale may seem harsh to many, but the patriotic enlistee is often in training to become a Blackwater thug. Burning Koran’s is just learning the drill before graduating to work for the corporate elite.

Now the Uniform Code of Military Justice is certainly a welcome standard for conduct, but pirate Xe Services armies, are restrained only by their own demons. Such reliance on using private black bag enforcers is hardly consistent with the illusive notion of nation building. Endemic corruption is inevitable when money and brute force controls the border. Paying tribute in order to wage war exemplifies the absurdity of the military machine. Their only fear is the ending of the campaign.

 

The You Tube  video illustrates this sentiment.Aspiring Rambo’s fighting the next Charlie Wilson’s exploit lacks the self-defense excuse of being the victim of First Blood. The Taliban that was shipped stinger missiles to defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were the product of a policy gone awry. Selig Harrisonfrom the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars states,

“The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan.” The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan’s demand that they should decide how this money should be spent.”

The consequences of this legacy are devastating. The covert army that operates in Afghanistan to engage in Obama’s Wars is a well-known fact. Author of Watergate fame, Bob Woodward reveals in his book, that the C.I.A. has a 3,000 man “covert army” in Afghanistan counterterrorism pursuit teams

Called, “C.T.P.T., mostly Afghans who capture and kill Taliban fighters and seek support in tribal areas. Past news accounts have reported that the C.I.A. has a number of militias, including one trained on one of its compounds, but nothing the size of the covert army.

Mr. Woodward reveals the code name for the C.I.A.’s drone missile campaign in Pakistan, Sylvan Magnolia, and writes that the White House was so enamored of the program that Mr. Emanuel would regularly call the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, asking, “Who did we get today?”

 

The video , expands on this operation. Roaming goon squads inflicting increased levels of atrocities is a demented extension of an evil empire.Historically, Afghanistan is probably one of the least desirable locations to carry on maneuvers. However, the imperialist empire must demonstrate its ability to project and drone anyone to death. It seems that all the hard-learned lessons of Viet Nam are lost. The memory banks of the officers that direct and carry out the dictates of a civilian authority, who love to play soldier, pervert their command. Playing video games is not entertainment when human body parts explode from bombs that rain down from the sky.

Standing down and rejecting unlawful orders are the supreme duty that escapes most military careerists. The fear of Courts Martial proceedings  keep the system shouting gung-ho.
 

“It seems appropriate that military members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States rather than simply swearing to support and defend the United States simpliciter. This is significant. It means that military members are more than just neutral tools of the political party in power. This oath places an affirmative responsibility on military members to read and understand the Constitution, to recognize the source and limits of the authority they have, and to uphold the specific system of government that the Constitution sets forth.”

The Afghanistan adventure, in now the longest imperium war, that even the mass media laments. ABC news observes,

“Vietnam and Afghanistan do have this much in common: they are distant, profoundly complex, and ill-understood campaigns. Not surprisingly, then, they defy easy resolutions. And, in their own ways, these two wars have tested the mettle and patience of a nation.”

The “mettle and patience” of the military is the real concern. As long as there is no draft, crisis of conscience are confined to those who succumb to obeying illegal orders for trumped up assignments. The American empire is a prime cause and reason for the destruction of the nation. The government is not the country nor is it legitimate when it acts as a belligerent.

The War on Terror is a pseudo fraud. Claims of an existential threat to America are bogus. The despotic War Party regime that fosters continuous international intervention wants a perpetual state of war. The hysteria that keeps citizens in a self-delusional trance pushes the military into uninterrupted carnage.

Alexander the Great discovered the limits of the Macedonian empire in Afghanistan. The English also discovered the hard way. Rudyard Kipling’s poem THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER sums up well.

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Go, go, go like a soldier,

Go, go, go like a soldier,

Go, go, go like a soldier,

So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

A CIA report concludes that the lessons learned from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan indicate: “There is no single piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier . . . no single military problem that has arisen and not been solved, and yet there is still no result.” Unfortunately, the most prolific attribute of American foreign policy is stupidity. The palpable explanation is that the best interests of the country are suppressed for the benefits of the ruling global elite. It is time to recognize that ill-placed patriotism is a guarantee for destruction.

Cleaning Out: Wall Street, Wolves, Masai Warriors & Raw Milk

Every time I see all those huge phalanxes of highly-weaponized and militarized police brigades viciously attacking protesting American citizens in cities across our country, all I can think of is this:  “The cost of even one of those cops’ salaries, overtime pay and elaborate gear represents at least a hundred of our children who will go without textbooks, or a fire department that miss out on purchasing lifesaving equipment or some shoddy infrastructure in my town that will never get fixed or….”

You get the picture.  That’s billions of American taxpayers’ dollars being spent to protect the One Percent’s right to safely gouge and enslave us.  What a waste. 

And as we continue to watch thousands of every-day Americans being savagely beaten and arrested in our very own country,  these last few months have become a very confusing time for most of us — but also a time that has been hopeful and rewarding.

For so many decades that it’s embarrassing to think about, the needs and preferences of us average Americans have been deliberately ignored and undermined by the wealthy corporatists who own us.  And apparently these oligarchs have, until now, always firmly believed that most of us Americans will continue to think and do whatever we have been told to think and do — forever.

But now most of us lowly worms have finally started to turn.

After spending all too many years of our lives standing submissively by while everything meaningful — from religion to lingerie — has gotten happily vacuumed up by corporatist Blue Meanies, we Americans are finally beginning to stand up for ourselves and vote with our feet instead of with Diebold.

Human beings were never meant to have their sole purpose to be to make oligarchs rich.  Doesn’t even the Bible say that?  Yes, I think that it does.  And so does the Torah and the Qur’an for that matter.  “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”  That kind of stuff.

Or, as Rudyard Kipling so succinctly put it in my Franklin Daily Planner recently, “The strength of the Pack is the Wolf — and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack”.  And Americans are also only as strong as our weakest links.  And when too many of us become homeless, jobless, illiterate and sick, then America becomes more and more fragile — allowing us to get picked off one by one by the very One Percent vultures who have made us this weak in the first place.

It’s time to start cleaning these rapacious vultures out of our lives now, right now — while we still can.

And speaking of cleaning out, my Chinese New Year’s resolution is to eat really healthy — and what could be more healthy than mother’s milk?  A mother cow’s milk, that is.

And so for the next 24 hours, I’m going to follow the example of strong Masai warriors and live mostly on raw milk.

Yummers!

Plus, no one ever died of cancer as a result of drinking raw milk — unlike the many people who have died of cancer after drinking uber-processed milk taken from hormone-treated, antibiotic-drugged, feed-lot-crazed cows  http://axiomatica.org/myvideos/video/130.

But before you start to guffaw and knock raw milk as being too weird or too old-fashioned or unsanitary, please do try it first.  Delicious.

Here’s a warning, however.  A friend of mine just told me that if you are having trouble getting pregnant, raw milk will help.  Hmmm.  Does that mean that I’ll be getting pregnant soon too?  Good grief, I hope not!  But drinking raw milk is also supposed to provide immuno-globulins, vitamins, enzymes, beneficial probiotic bacteria and cancer-fighting CLA, as well as helping to prevent bone-density loss, strengthen the immune system, encourage iron assimilation and help ease constipation http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_health_benefits.html.

But will it also turn me into a Masai warrior?  Or even perhaps into a wolf?  How cool would that be!

And will drinking raw milk also make me strong and invincible enough to stand up to the One Percent’s slick new mercenary stormtroopers — now playing all across America, in a city near you?  Probably not, unfortunately.  Sigh.

US vs China: Rivals or Partners

The New Great Game is a strife among many powers, regional and global, as well as, big and small. Russia, China and the US are the key players. The Central Asia is a large and resourceful area as compared to barren, mountainous Afghanistan.

1. Introduction.  The terminology of Great Game was initially coined by Rudyard Kipling. He brought world’s attention towards the rivalry for a region between two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. The region for which they were competing holds its importance even today. Much has altered since that traditional rivalry and competition has thwarted. The Soviet empire dismembered and the United Kingdom had to abandon its colossal empire following WWII. While both Czars and British feared each other and desired to keep Afghan territory under their influence, the nature of current context is far more complicated.

The New Great Game is a strife among many powers, regional and global, as well as, big and small. Russia, China and the US are the key players. The Central Asia is a large and resourceful area as compared to barren, mountainous Afghanistan. The economic disposition of conflict makes it remarkable. The region comprises the Central Asian Muslim dominant states, bordering the Caspian basin. What makes the Caspian basin and adjoining territories so attractive is the presence of oil. The oil in general has become a source of political tussle among the states.

The West has huge dependency on Middle East. Desperate to wean its dependence on the powerful OPEC Cartel, the United States is pitted in this struggle against Russia, China and Iran, all competing to dominate the Caspian region, its resources and pipeline routes. Complicating the playing field are transnational energy corporations with their own agendas and the brash new Wild West style entrepreneurs who have taken control after the collapse of Soviet Union.

Dossym Satpayev, a political analyst, believes that within next ten years China will dominate the Central Asia’s political, economic and military spheres, mainly through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Its main rival will be less affluent Russia, whose historic dominance has left it with the habit of trying to boss former Soviet republics. The Chinese leaders have managed to advance far beyond the largely ceremonial co-operation of “friendship treaties”, without resorting to Russian tactics. According to Mr. Satpayev, “China does not only buy loyalty with documents, but with money given at a low percentage”.

Then there comes intense US involvement in the region, which according to some analysts have disturbed the traditional balance of the region. Its global war on terror (GWOT) has come under intense criticism due to fake accusations of WMD in Iraq.  Afghanistan on hunt for Al Qaeda is a drab drag.

2. US vs. China. When it is asserted that America and China are rivals and partners simultaneously, it is here argued that this phrase has a paradoxical impact. An emerging power has to establish cordial relations with an established one. They are rivals at various fronts, however they do avoid any direct clash and act as partners on various matters and forums e.g. the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The Central Asia presents an altogether distinct and multifaceted battleground. China can neither out rightly oppose a hegemonic presence, nor can it ascertain friendly gestures and proclaim policy statements favoring a “sole superpower’s” huge presence in its backyard. This article will focus on United States (US) and China’s individual interests in the region as well as the competition to outdo each other.

China’s surging demand for reserves is now a fact of life. “Welcome to the oil business of the 21^st century”, says a senior executive at a major US oil producer, “this is the new world”. But the history of oil industry teaches that money is sometimes the only part of the plot. Power and geopolitical influence are oil’s handmaidens. Daniel Yergin; Chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, says that as Chinese companies “try to get in on new deals, occasionally commercial rivalry will get caught up in larger foreign policy issues”.

3. The New Great Game. The New Great Game seems more like a haunted version of the previous game. It’s much more multifaceted and complex. China’s involvement is due to region’s reserves, nevertheless at the same time there also lies a big concern for kinship ties of its restless Xinjiang. If China’s geographical position is analyzed, China shares borders with turbulent Tajikistan, Kyrgyz and the Kazakhstan states. During the cold war, the Central Asia, being part of Former Soviet Union (FSU), was solely used by the Soviets. However the Chinese stance under went no apparent change during the initial years of the region’s independence in 1990’s. The Chinese apprehensions revolved around the theme that these states were part of Russian sphere of influence. Later subsequent events revealed an altering scenario and the Chinese were compelled to carve out their policy goals regarding the region. Hence China was now ready to establish bilateral ties with the nascent states. Analyzing no apparent danger could emanate from the Central Asian republics (CARs), which could threaten China, the latter embarked on an economic policy, investment and trade, every single feature being an ingredient of its soft power image.

4. China. China could offer major trade opportunities as well as modest amounts of capital and technology to the economically weak Central Asian republics. By doing this, Chinese leaders could justifiably assure themselves that they were strengthening republic’s economies and responding to what Central Asian leaders consider their most basic need. The Chinese clearly agree that economic development offers the region the only possibility of limiting future ethnic and religious conflict.[i] Hence economic prosperity can be used as a tool to fuel not only its rapidly growing economy but also can bring subsequent potential stability to the region. China has its own versions of a “new silk route” These Chinese policies may be cause of concern for its old communist boss, the Russian federation. As these policies may diminish latter’s notable grab over the volatile states. Despite harboring deep suspicions for each other’s motives, China and the Russia, have adopted accommodation, and rapprochement policy visibly culminating in Shanghai cooperation organization. One can infer that China’s slow and consistent ascendancy in world politics will help it in exhibiting tremendous influence over its bordering countries.

Having viewed China’s success, the Central Asian leaders always had economic interests in mind. Official invitations were issued and Central Asia’s presidents and foreign ministers went to the Chinese capital eager to satisfy their curiosity about the nature of economic miracle that the Chinese were experiencing.[ii] The Chinese engagements with the Central Asian states characterize border agreements with Kyrgyz and Kazakh republics. In 1998 there was considerable progress in delineating both the Kazakh and Kyrgyz borders with China. A joint statement by President Akayev and President Zhiang Zemin made during Akayev April 1998 trip to Beijing kicked off a period of intensive negotiation. In June 1998 Kazakhstan and China also signed an agreement dividing 944 square kilometers of disputed border territories with nearly 6O percent of the land remaining in Kazakh hands. The critics of the agreement however see that China got the most valuable bits.[iii] Some of the significant economic maneuvers by Chinese also included in 1997, the Chinese national Petroleum Company (CNPC) won a tender and a 60 pc stake – in the Zhana Zhol and kenkiyak fields in Aktobe, Kazakhstan. The Chinese were committed to build a $9.6 billion pipeline, but then scaled down the project by late 2001, to less than $200 million. The Chinese government is also interested in the development of transit links that would allow the Central Asian states to better use the Chinese highway, railroad system and ports to shift transit trade away from Russia, an interest they share with the Central Asian states.[iv] Nazarbayev paid a visit to Beijing in May 2004, he and Chinese president Hu Jin Tao signed an agreement for joint exploration and development of oil and gas resources in the Caspian sea.

China’s role in Central Asian energy sector has steadily increased. This is so because Middle East has been a precarious region due to its unsettled disputes and warring and aggressive policies of the turbulent parties involved. Also the resources which symbolize the famed region are undergoing depletion. Hence the New Great Game is a diversion from the volatile Middle East and China intends to secure alternative oil and gas supplies.

Besides the economic interests, the long enduring separatist movement in the Xinjiang, the Chinese Muslim dominated province, has been a key factor driving Chinese policies. A lasting peace for her internal security is pivotal. The Xinjiang is inhabited by Muslims, many of Turk origin, who have well-established ties with their kins in CARs. The ties between the populations of Xinjiang and the Central Asian states are strong and there has traditionally not been a clear border between the people in Central Asia and Xingjian, aside from the theoretical border given on maps.[v] The Muslims in Xinjiang desire for an independent state “East-Turkestan”. Although none of the governments in Central Asian republics support such a standpoint of Xinjiang people.  There has been constant effort by people, and their aspirations have often culminated into military activity. For this reason China mounted military effort in the province. The neighboring Afghanistan has been a fomenting force behind as the following paragraph better illustrates.

During the year 2000 the Chinese armed forces in Xinjiang claim to have confiscated 4100 kg of dynamite, 2723 kg of other explosives, 604 illegal small arms and 31,000rounds of ammunition in comparison to much lower confiscations in 1990’s.[vi]

5. Pakistan and Afghanistan. The South Asian region comprising Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal belt (referred to as Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA) had been in war since the late 1970s. The drug trafficking, the weaponry, the recruitment bases, the training centers and other contrabands characterized the region. The atmosphere was productive and a beneficent facilitator to wage a guerrilla war. Then there was a direct spillover effect of the war on the Central Asian region, especially those adjoining directly to chaotic Afghanistan.

6. Following 9/11. The long American presence in the war weary Afghanistan has been distasteful for Russia and China (regional powers) as it is diminishing their role in the region. However the American presence has stipulated inducement to both Russians and Chinese, in their response to Chechens and Uighurs respectively, hence legitimizing their forceful actions. Entering into the tenth year of the bloody struggle in Afghanistan, the North Atlantic Treaty organization (NATO) forces and Taliban scramble for control continues and it gives the impression in 2011 that a stalemate is evolving. The domino effect of the situation is sensed all around the region especially in China’s Muslim dominated province and the Central Asian Muslim republics.

The Chinese expansion in Central Asia slowed down somewhat after Sep 11, 2001. Yet after 2002 the economic interaction, between Central Asia and China has increased immensely. America has a great deal to offer and that most of the states in the region would prefer to cooperate with America rather than Russia or China. Many states, in contrast, are also aware of the fact that Americans will probably leave, while neighbors will stay.  This makes China a crucial actor in the region and a long-term counter-balance against Russia.[vii].

7. China and Africa. China has been the world’s largest and rapidly growing economy with its growth rate stable and sustainable for the past few decades. China is also investing heavily in Africa. This Chinese policy comes under criticism from major powers due to poor human rights record of certain African regimes. The Chinese have bought oil fields in neighbors e.g. the Chinese national petroleum company (CNPC), bought in Kazakhstan oil fields for USD 5 billion. Also China has finalized several construction agreements with Kazakhstan to build pipelines to an estimated cost of USD 9 billion. The China petroleum corporation (Sinopec) agreed on March 12, 2003 to pay British gas USD 615 million for a stake in an oil and gas field in Kazakhstan which came four days after China’s third largest oil company (CNOOC) bought 8.33% of the British gas north Caspian Sea project for the same sum. To this a pledge from China Petroleum Corporation to invest USD 4 billion in Kazakhstan’s oil industry should be added.[viii]

8. China and Iran. China is also developing close commercial relations with Iran, an oil rich state of the region and a close neighbor of the Central Asian republics, to gain from its precious reserves. China’s cooperation with the stern Iranian regime has been aching factor in the US policy circles. A Sino Iranian network of oil pipelines, which has already been initiated, would be a substitute to the current Russian and American networks and give the Central Asian states an alternative route for oil trade which would decrease their dependence on Russia. The Chinese engagements with the Central Asian regimes vary from political to military and trade to investment.

9. CARS. The Central Asian regimes are structurally, militarily, and financially disadvantaged. The regimes are autocratic, dictatorial and their political systems not framed according to true liberal democratic norms. The resource-rich and strategically important region of Central Asia has some of the world’s worst dictatorships.

• The Uzbekistan is widely regarded as having one of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet with corruption, religious and political persecution and state-sanctioned torture including boiling alive of prisoners.
• The Turkmenistan is seen as a little better.
• The regimes in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are less cruel but remain in the complete control of powerful dictator presidencies. Secondly their militaries are neither trained nor equipped appropriately as following lines better illustrate. The three of the Central Asian states (Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan) have no military forces worth the name. All five states have sufficiently good relations with Russia. The only potential threat to Russia from Central Asia comes from the possibility of a mass radical Islamist uprising in the Ferghana Valley, especially in the event of a NATO failure in Afghanistan that may perhaps result in the Taliban’s return to power there. In that case, Khramchikhin argues for joining forces with Kazakhstan to keep the radicals in the south while leaving the governments of the other Central Asian to survive as best they can on their own.

10. Economic disposition of region. The economic position of Central Asian states presents a status quo situation owing to scramble being played out in its south.

The Central Asia is continuously recognized as

• An important stakeholder in the Caspian energy game
• A conduit to Chinese energy security,
• A playground of Russian power politics,
• A transit area for criminal activity and religious fervor that is played out to its extreme in Afghanistan.

Central Asia is part of several struggles that intermittently see external actors competing for their attention. This competition is often exemplified in bilateral or multilateral economic as well as military agreements which are negotiated with the Central Asian states. However these external actors also dictate the terms of engagement. Access to resources and infrastructure has become prioritized as soft power tools of Russia, China and US through which they increase their regional influence.

On the other hand regional elites are also powerful. They know that they can leverage competing interests to their (often personal) advantage. As a result rule of law, corporate governance and transparency in commercial operations are often considered to be nonessential in the national interest.

Also these regimes strive to extract maximum aid and armaments from Russia, China and US.. In nutshell Beijing with its interests primarily secured from Muslim Central Asia, Muslim Middle East and Iranian Muslim regimes cannot alienate them by turning hard on to Uighur in Xinjiang. The Uighurs are Sunni Muslims. Many analysts believe that America and China are probably the only two key players in the region since Russia is embroiled in its domestic problems

11. The Source of Attraction/ the wealth distribution. The natural resource that has attracted the attention of American, Japanese and other foreign investors to Central Asia is energy – oil and natural gas. It is worth mentioning here that cross country differences vis-à-vis the ultimate distribution of immense wealth is striking. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are the unlucky neighbors of energy rich Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan’s principal underground wealth is oil. By contrast Turkmenistan, rich in oil deposits, is also proud possessor of the word’s third largest reserves of natural gas. Uzbekistan’s known oil and gas reserves are modest in comparison. Even with greater exploration Uzbekistan, at best, can expect to become a modest net energy exporter. The gold is another resource, Central Asia has plenty of.  If oil, gas and gold are what make foreign investors salivate over this region then Central Asia, which most experts write about, excludes Tajikistan and perhaps even Kyrgyzstan.

12. Independent Evaluation and Assessment. Ariel Cohen, in a detailed study of old politics in the Caspian region, has opined that after the Soviet disintegration, the Russian military and security services intended to restore Moscow’s control over the region and its pipeline routes. In his view the US should not allow Russia to play a dominant role in Caspian, otherwise Moscow will have almost monopolistic control over these vital energy resources, thus increasing western dependence upon Russia.

Another analyst Federico Pena also observed the Russian role in the Caspian. He opined that US seems anxious for collaboration in the Caspian region through partnership with Russian companies, asserting that Caspian was strategically important for the US and that the US companies were playing a leading role in the region. This is evident from the multiple pipeline strategy that the US has been promoting in Caspian, which in effect, has reduced the role of Russia’s northern route in exporting oil from this region.

America wants to secure supply not only for itself, but also want western firms to equally invest in Central Asian projects. This would reduce Europe’s acute oil and gas dependence on Moscow. Washington champions two pipelines that would circumvent both Russia and Iran. One would run from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. The construction has already begun for a $3.8 billion pipeline from Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, via neighboring Georgia to Turkey’s Mediterranean port of Ceyhan (BTC) project. The BP, its main operator, has invested billions in oil rich Azerbaijan and can count on support from the Bush administration, which stationed about 500 elite troops in war torn Georgia.

Ariel Cohen, in his article titled “The New Great Game: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia,” has mentioned certain steps and diplomatic maneuvers to be undertaken by US to ensure unrestricted supply.

• Firstly US should strengthen its ties with Caucasus and Central Asian states, assuring that these states get fair share of revenue in exploration projects and transit fees.
• Secondly US should not adopt policy of ruling out Moscow’s gas companies from exploring rights.
• Thirdly the conflicts arising in the region must be resolved with determination.  Also instead of derogating these Muslim republics US must assist to create free market economies, give them access to European market, and support governments that respect democracy and political pluralism. Various international projects especially the US sponsored (BTC) project, decreases the potential dangers associated with former pathways i.e. the Bosporus straits which are also the busiest in world shipping.
•  The strategic goal of the West should be the creation of a level playing field, allowing Russian and western corporations to participate in the development of Eurasian energy resources on an equal footing. If cooperation from Russia is not forth coming, the US should oppose attempts by the Russian security establishment to impose a single direction for the pipelines i.e. north via Russian territory. If Russian preponderance and geopolitical diktat continues it would give Moscow an unacceptable level of control over the flow of oil to western markets and could make the west vulnerable to Russia’s political whims.
• Nevertheless the US cooperation in region comes with doubts as various International Non Governmental Organizations (INGOS), NGOs and think tanks that effect US policy makers look down upon these regimes due to their poor human rights record, shameful practices of treating prisoners, poverty and a heavy handed approach of regimes towards their indigenous people. The region, in actual fact, is in dire need of economic development, as many sinister and evil deeds are a result of poverty. The primary source of instability throughout the region is neither religious extremism nor ethnic conflict but lack of economic opportunity.

13. US and China as Rivals. The key rival challenging US supremacy in the region is China. In 2009 for the first time China’s net trade with Central Asia exceeded that of Russia and the trend is likely to persist in future, says Alexander Cooley, a political scientist at Columbia University. He says China is stealing a march on the two cold war era superpowers. In December, a consortium, led by the China national petroleum company won the rights to develop Turkmenistan’s south Yolotan field, one of the world’s most prized gas fields. China is also active in uranium and oil projects in Kazakhstan (the region’s largest economy) and has been building modern roads that will transport Chinese goods to impoverished Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and beyond.

China has renewed its traditional vassal relations with the region and the Chinese relations with the people in region have traditionally been the relationship of peace, war, trade, deception and marriages, all the ingredients for a good story. It is only in the last 100 years during the Russian and Soviet occupation that China has been excluded from the region. China has traditionally viewed Central Asia as its personal trading area and a region heavily influenced by Chinese cultures. The trade between China and Central Asia has always been crucial and favored by both sides, as it is today. The only change today is that the traders have replaced jade, tea, silk and rhubarb with oil, weapons and infrastructure. Oil and gas have emerged as the most important financial reasons for China to engage with the Central Asian states to the degree that it has done.

The Chinese leaders have been anti US hegemonic displays and its unilateralist stance. Whether it is China’s alliance with Iran or a platform of SCO, the main policy imperative is to restrain US growing influence in region. The Iranian Shiite regime has not been a threat to the Sunni dominated Central Asian states.  Washington may be reluctant to admit it, but in the new Great Game in Eurasia, the Tehran-Beijing axis spells out the future: Multi polarity.

14. Conclusion. One may consider this conception of “new great game” to be bogus or sham, as remonstrated by some thinkers, yet one cannot reckon the very notion of a renounced Realist thought “National self interest”. This is the chief driver behind this game directly or indirectly as the case may be. The illustrious “new great game is a perilous quest. It may be hazardous because the path pursued by some states is treacherous, producing adverse consequences for the people, henceforth oblivious.

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggests that real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden. Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle East. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan; the countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world (Russia being first). Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now Russians are planning a new pipeline, north. Chinese are building a new pipeline, east. The U.S. is pushing for “multiple oil and gas export routes.” High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy. Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century.

Ever since the economic reforms, in China, by Deng Xiao ping in late 1970’s the demand for oil has increased. The dependence on the Middle East had reached 50 percent of crude imports in 1996, and the decision was made to diversify away from the Middle East rather than assume that the Gulf region will become peaceful. The Chinese energy security would be better assured by access to Russian and Central Asian sources as well as to new sources of crude oil imports from Angola and Vietnam.

China is operating equally along side Russia in devouring energy deals. This provides an equal clientele to the Muslim Central Asian republics. This Chinese policy is far more attractive than facing Russian monopoly as previously. China offers a useful counterweight to Russia. A network of pipelines between Central Asia and China is gradually taking shape, and Russia appears to be realizing that China is not just a useful partner for keeping west out of Central Asia – it is also a competitor. However, as European energy growth slows, Russia too needs alternative markets for its oil and gas, and China has managed to secure preferential treatment there as well.

Many analysts who write on Central Asian energy wealth, often focus their concentration on plight of Afghanistan solely, which has made CARs vulnerable, due to the insecurity prevailing in Afghanistan more like a domino effect. At the critical juncture of their independence the Central Asians were fearful as they lost Soviet backing, their security provider. These weak and fragile states were the onlooker of Taliban civil strife in the decade of 1990’s dreading the spillover effect and that seems the same today. In 2011, the consequential effect of US war in Afghanistan is haunting the Central Asian regimes. The drug trafficking, smuggling, narcotics, human trafficking and arms trade etc is delaying their economic well being and becoming cause of derailment and frustration for many opportunists.

Source: Opinion Maker

Nobel Peace Prize for AWOL War President

William Jefferson Clinton was called the first black president. Now it can be said that Barry Soetoro is the first female president. What justifies such a label? Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama has nocojones. The Ipanema vacationer practices his African samba carnival dance while carnage rains from tomahawk missiles. Humanitarian altruism acts as cover for a remote controlled marionette doing the bidding in the Soros world of his sorcerer mentors. This commander in chief runs from his own shadow.

Do you recall when media outlets with calls of “the wimp factor” bedeviled George Herbert Walker Bush? Or do you remember when a national magazine emblazoned, Jr – George Walker Bush with the wrong “W.” He is not a wimp? Well, what name do you use when a lily-livered mistake of a president needs to interrupt another holiday to push the war buttons, while his girls, Sasha and Malia await more spring break entertainment? Obama shed his coat and tie, rolled up his sleeves and dribbled one-on-one soccer with one surprised boy from a Rio slum. What a do-gooder.

Sorry, folks this excuse for a leader exemplifies the feminization of a pussy-whipped upbringing. His need to use the singular I in every other sentence and the delusional claim that he speaks for all Americans is characteristic of an insecure crybaby who cannot handle criticism or reasoned refrains. A mammy’s boy of untold pansy traits, is a sissy POTUS. His mental instability is similar to a man hating feminist, feeling perpetual menstrual cycle urges of self-destruction. Such a whiner induces a cognitive dissonance administration that has small testicles with the swagger of a bully’s bravado. Ordering others to do the dirty deeds is the disgraceful profile in courage of a coward.

The Orwellian newspeak coming out of the military permanent security empire was almost too much for Defense Secretary Robert Gate. Yet, his gut objections against another foreign incursion were overridden by the culture of compliance. Any strong leader and person of conscience would have resigned his post before unleashing the dogs of war.

Such a president, is commendable of a second courtier award, the first War is Peace medal. The standards to qualify require the killing of thousands to take out one bad man whose successor will be interchanged from among scores of replacement despots waiting in line for empire approval. Serenity reestablished for the New World Order gets another noble prize. Ignorance of the masses = the strength of the system.

The time is ripe for the next substitute clone president. Obama’s claim for party re-nomination as the leader of the free world has evaporated. His minions distance themselves as the house of cards collapses. Barry is a joke and his handlers know he has done enough, if not all the damage envisioned, in this stage of completing the Totalitarian Collectivismmodel.The neocons have an ideal loyal opposition dummy in Obama. The progressive left twist in the wind as they bite their tongues to stop their criticism of their inept underdog hero. The disarray in policy has the appearance of weakness, while still pursuing the same aggressive destruction of the Middle East region to secure control over the oil and protect the Zionist lust for a greater Israel.

Kathleen Parker, of the Washington Post makes these points. “Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.”

The ADR Prof Blog reflects up this viewpoint.

“Additionally, women are generally viewed as effective communicators　while employing “feminine” communication styles, but have been chastised for taking on styles normally attributed to men. For example, Hillary Clinton has received continual criticism for talking too assertively.

Would you agree that Obama’s style, in comparison to past presidents and to the stereotypical male politician, is “feminine” and that he is suffering as a result of that adoption? Is this sentiment true of other men who adopt the “listener” style?”

This Ms. President is over her head. All the more reason to defer to foreign policy experts like Clinton and Biden. What a crew. Absent-minded Joe is so far out of the loop that the “village idiot” is still looking for the train to get back to . As for HilLAIRy, she swings her woody stick with the enthusiasm of a cheerleader at a Vince Foster wake. Who better to dictate the internment over the Siege of Tobruk? It takes a Nazi to raise a comrade and a spy to sell out their country.

Before anyone misunderstands the true nature of a strong American leader, the best war president is one who never takes the nation into harm’s way for imperialistic motives. The war that needs waging is the one against the real enemy, the globalist international community of elite’s.

Obama’s willingness to continue the Afghanistan adventure to make the world safe for poppy seed distribution brings anopium habit of collateral damage to a higher level. The ongoing evil empire continues under a different name and another administration. The only message that changes is the “PC” wordsmith distortions of the face of war.Writing in Slate, Timothy Noah nails it with a hammer of dynamic precision in When warfare gets “kinetic”. The Rumsfeld tradition continues under Madam President Obama.

“The recent war in Afghanistan demonstrates that when the chips are down, we still find it necessary to go kinetic. Indeed, for all its novel methods of non-kinetic warfare, today’s military is much more deadly than it ever was before. For the foreseeable future, civilians and at least a few soldiers will continue to be killed in war. “Kinetic” seems an objectionable way to describe this reality from the point of view of both doves and hawks. To those who deplore or resist going to war, “kinetic” is unconscionably euphemistic, with antiseptic connotations derived from high-school physics and aesthetic ones traceable to the word’s frequent use by connoisseurs of modern dance. To those who celebrate war (or at least find it grimly necessary), “kinetic” fails to evoke the manly virtues of strength, fierceness, and bravery. Imagine Rudyard Kipling penning the lines, “For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’/ But it’s ‘Saviour of ‘is country’ when the U.K goes kinetic.” Is it too late to remove this word from the Washington lexicon?”

The mad rush to occupy the lands of Northern Africa, the Middle East and central Asia is all about the elimination of the nation state and the merging of strong-arm dictator regimes or tribal feuding factions, into a worldwide synthetic kingdom of top down global authoritarianism.

In order to deserve a peace prize a recipient needs to demonstrate leadership in the cause of the sacred nature and sanctity of human life. The bogus claim that the Libyan attack is based upon humanitarian motives ignores the last forty years of crony capitalism with Colonel Gaddafi. What changed now and just who are these phantom rebels?

Obama deserves the Gideon Pillow medal of dishonor for consistent incompetency and cowardice for firing the first shoot. Another failed president and coldblooded wartime general, Ulysses S. Grant sets the qualifications. “I had known General Pillow in Mexico, and judged that with any force, no matter how small, I could march up to within gunshot of any entrenchments he was given to hold.”Just think about it. This libber president holds the nuclear football codes. America needs a divorce from this attention seeking personality. With no prenuptial, the keys to the oval office need to be retrieved. Keeping the doors locked is a good start.

Video: The New Great Game: The River of Destiny

Iqbal Malhotra, who is a personal friend of the Afghan Ambassador in New Delhi, Mr.Masood Khalili, began planning in April 2001 to bring the real identity of the Northern Alliance to the notice of the world. The world believed the Taliban had overrun almost 90 percent of Afghanistan, and that they had a mind of their own. As The New Great Game shows, this was far from the truth, and the stakes for absolute physical control over Afghanistan were much greater.

Right from the time of the 19th century Great Game, first identified by Rudyard Kipling in his book Kim, Afghanistan has been at the centre of great power rivalry. In the 21st century, the players, the prize and the playing field of the New Great Game have changed. The New Great Game has evolved out of the ethos, rules and parameters of the Old Great Game.  more>>

Iqbal Malhotra – The New Great Game: The River of Destiny