You are hereBlogs / jimstaro's blog / Scahill Understands the Reality

Scahill Understands the Reality

By jimstaro - Posted on 24 November 2010

Scahill once again is reading the quagmire right on! Maybe a few do remember or sought out the lessons, the real ones, of our quagmire Vietnam!! If we had stayed, no Iraq total destruction, and helped start rebuilding while searching out al Qaeda, as we promised once again we would, just think!!


Not the Taliban leader you're looking for


Nov. 23: Jeremy Scahill, writer for The Nation and author of Blackwater, talks with Chris Hayes about what it means that NATO was trying to negotiate peace with a Taliban imposter.


There isn't really much of serious value in this video clip, and there are a couple of things that are variably wrong in what Jeremy Scahill says. One thing that's wrong is that he refers to the three main fighting, variably resisting Afghan groups as all Taliban and they apparently are not. The other thing that's wrong, but while that's not due to Jeremy Scahill, is the part about US special forces wanting to get out of Afghanistan to, instead, go operate in Somalia and/or Yemen. Jeremy Scahill surely did not make up that view US "special" ops forces in Afghanistan, but they are definitely wrong and they definitely must not be sent anywhere except back to the US, and that should happen immediately. I'll say a little more on both of those topics, below; or, might make a separate post about this bs view US special forces have.

Regarding three main Afghan resistance groups, I wonder if Jeremy Scahill really means to use the word "Taliban", or if he means mujahideen, Afghan resistance fighters. If he really means "Taliban", then, and based on what I've gathered from articles by a few or several different people who know a lot about the real Taliban, there is only one real Afghan resistance group called Taliban in Afghanistan and their leader is Mullah Mohammed Omar. The other two Afghan resistance groups are not called "Taliban", except by some western media people and their readers who haven't read from, either, more authoritatively knowledgeable people or sources, or certainly people who know how to be precise.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar leads the "Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin" and Jalaluddin Haqqani leads the "Haqqani Network". Neither lead the "Taliban". And the Afghan resistance group really called "the Taliban" uses the title of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Below are some articles that provide information about these three Afghan resistance groups, but evidently little about "the Taliban", i.e., the IEoA.

"Afghanistan: Charlie Wilson And America's 30-Year War"
by Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, Feb. 16th, 2010


There is no war without an adversary, and McChrystal identified the targets of the campaign that over 150,000 U.S. and NATO troops will soon be waging: "The major insurgent groups in order of their threat to the mission are: the Quetta Shura Taliban (05T), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG)." [4]

The last two groups are named after their founders and leaders, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, respectively.

Haqqani and Hekmatyar lost an old friend and colleague on February 10, former 12-term U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson. The hero of one of the most successful American films of 2007-2008, Charlie Wilson's War, he has been eulogized in the press and by his former partner in arming and training the likes of Haqqani and Hekmatyar - and Osama bin Laden - current U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from 1986 to 1989 and who said in a 1999 speech, "CIA had important successes in covert action. Perhaps the most consequential of all was Afghanistan where CIA, with its management, funnelled billions of dollars in supplies and weapons to the mujahideen...." [5]

Gates was referring to Operation Cyclone, the largest covert operation conducted by the CIA and indeed by any agency or nation. The full title of the book by George Crile the movie Charlie Wilson's War is based on is Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History.

The bulk of the billions of dollars Gates boasted of supplying to arm the Pakistan-based Mujahideen was directed to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani. Those two are now identified by the same Pentagon that Gates heads up as two of the three targets of the world's largest and longest war.


During the first Afghan war of 1979-1992 Wilson was a guest of Jalaluddin Haqqani in eastern Afghanistan in 1987 and referred to his host as "goodness personified." When after September 11, 2001 Haqqani was named number three on the U.S. most-wanted list after Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar, Wilson said: "That did give me pause for thought. But Haqqani took care of me, and I’ll never forget that. I’d love to see him again. I would try to persuade him that the Taleban was a force for destruction – which he definitely wasn’t.” [7]


Osama bin Ladin was on the top most-wanted list, but not for 9/11. People can simply check the FBI's Web site, the top most wanted criminals page and they'll find that OBL has not been charged for 9/11. An FBI official was questioned about this "lacune" by a journalist and the official said that it's not the FBI that makes these decisions, that it's the DoJ that does, and that the DoJ had ruled that there was not sufficient evidence for charging OBL for 9/11.

And I doubt that Haqqani is on the most-wanted list for 9/11. OBL certainly isn't. He's on the list only for the attacks on two US embassies in Africa during the Clinton administration, and possibly for other acts, but all prior to 9/11.

I'll excerpt a little more from Rick Rozoff's article.


An Indian news agency wrote at the beginning of the year that "It has now been shockingly admitted that the suicide bombing that killed seven CIA employees in eastern Afghanistan this week was masterminded by warlord and one-time key CIA ally Jalaluddin Haqqani."

"During the 1980s, Mr Haqqani was a respected commander battling, with Western support, against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. After they withdrew, he became a member of the US-approved coalition that formed the post-occupation government." [12]

While the two other groups are allied with the Taliban, according to the Wikipedia page for "Taliban", the Taliban fought to take over and took over the government in 1996. And while they're allies, they're not always allies. The Wikipedia page for "Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin" refers to and provides a link to an article about fighting between this group and the Taliban last March, f.e.

"Hizb-e-Islami militants fight Taliban, defect to Afghan govt"

by AFP, March 8th, 2010\03\08\story_8-3-2010_pg1_3

Excerpting more from Rick Rozoff's article:


Even though George Crile's book documents that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani were the main recipients of U.S. military aid secured by Wilson and his counterparts in the CIA - including Robert Gates - neither is mentioned in the film version.


An edition of U.S. News & World Report from 2008 provided details on Wilson's relations with both Hekmatyar and Haqqani and the current activities of the last two.

"In recent weeks, Hekmatyar has called upon Pakistani militants to attack U.S. targets, while the Haqqani network is blamed for three large vehicle bombings, along with the attempted assassination of [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai in April....[T]hese two warlords - currently at the top of America's list of most wanted men in Afghanistan - were once among America's most valued allies."


As seen above, Wilson, the "extraordinary patriot," adored Jalaluddin Haqqani to his dying day. As The Time's obituary of the former cited above stated, "[I]t is just possible that some of Wilson’s friends might soon be friends of America again." [17]

Wilson's other partner, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "was...a renowned opium smuggler and warlord, and was alleged to have sprayed acid in the faces of women who did not wear the veil. One of [Hekmatyar's] colleagues referred to him as 'a true monster,' though he allegedly impressed the CIA (revealing something of its character) by wanting to take the war against the Soviets to Central Asia and roll back communism in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.

"One CIA officer said, 'We wanted to kill as many Russians as we could, and Hikmatyar seemed like the guy to do it.'" [18]


The Taliban were accused of spraying acid into the faces of women, which is something I doubt that the group actually called the Taliban, which refers to itself or to themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, would do. They're strict with religious law, but I doubt that they'd commit such acts of brutality against women for any reason. They might possibly decapitate or kill by other means, any Afghan woman acting with foreign enemy forces, but would have no cause to commit physical violence against other Afghan women. One Afghan woman provided I believe an interview to John Pilger and she referred to the war and drug lords, as well as the Taliban, saying both were definitely bad for Afghan women, but while she described extremely brutal, criminal acts against women by the war and drug lords, she said that women could safely walk outdoors and would be safe in their homes during the Taliban regime.

That article is of the month of January, possibly January 9th, 2008. I just searched for the article at his Web site and it's no longer there, but the following is a Jan. 10th copy.

"The 'Good War' Is a Bad War"
by John Pilger, Jan. 10th, 2008

"To me, I confess, [countries] are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for dominion of the world."
Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, speaking about Afghanistan, 1898

I had suggested to Marina that we meet in the safety of the Intercontinental Hotel, where foreigners stay in Kabul, but she said no. She had been there once and government agents, suspecting she was Rawa, had arrested her. We met instead at a safe house, reached through contours of bombed rubble that was once streets, where people live like earthquake victims awaiting rescue.

Rawa is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which since 1977 has alerted the world to the suffering of women and girls in that country. There is no organization on earth like it. It is the high bar of feminism, home of the bravest of the brave. Year after year, Rawa agents have traveled secretly through Afghanistan, teaching at clandestine girls' schools, ministering to isolated and brutalized women, recording outrages on cameras concealed beneath their burqas. They were the Taliban regime's implacable foes when the word Taliban was barely heard in the west: when the Clinton administration was secretly courting the mullahs so that the oil company UNOCAL could build a pipeline across Afghanistan from the Caspian.

Indeed, Rawa's understanding of the designs and hypocrisy of western governments informs a truth about Afghanistan excluded from news, now reduced to a drama of British squaddies besieged by a demonic enemy in a "good war." When we met, Marina was veiled to conceal her identity. Marina is her nom de guerre. She said: "We, the women of Afghanistan, only became a cause in the west following 11 September 2001, when the Taliban suddenly became the official enemy of America. Yes, they persecuted women, but they were not unique, and we have resented the silence in the west over the atrocious nature of the western-backed warlords, who are no different. They rape and kidnap and terrorize, yet they hold seats in [Hamid] Karzai's government. In some ways, we were more secure under the Taliban. You could cross Afghanistan by road and feel secure. Now, you take your life into your hands." (my emphasis added)

The reason the United States gave for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 was "to destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11." The women of Rawa say this is false. ...

The truth about the "good war" is to be found in compelling evidence that the 2001 invasion, widely supported in the west as a justifiable response to the 11 September attacks, was actually planned two months prior to 9/11 and that the most pressing problem for Washington was not the Taliban's links with Osama Bin Laden, but the prospect of the Taliban mullahs losing control of Afghanistan to less reliable mujahedin factions, led by warlords who had been funded and armed by the CIA to fight America's proxy war against the Soviet occupiers in the 1980s. Known as the Northern Alliance, these mujahedin had been largely a creation of Washington, which believed the "jihadi card" could be used to bring down the Soviet Union. The Taliban were a product of this and, during the Clinton years, they were admired for their "discipline." Or, as the Wall Street Journal put it, "[the Taliban] are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history."

The "moment in history" was a secret memorandum of understanding the mullahs had signed with the Clinton administration on the pipeline deal. ...

However, by the late 1990s, the Northern Alliance had encroached further and further on territory controlled by the Taliban, whom, as a result, were deemed in Washington to lack the "stability" required of such an important client. ...

By early 2001, convinced it was the presence of Osama Bin Laden that was souring their relationship with Washington, the Taliban tried to get rid of him. Under a deal negotiated by the leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties, Bin Laden was to be held under house arrest in Peshawar. A tribunal of clerics would then hear evidence against him and decide whether to try him or hand him over to the Americans. Whether or not this would have happened, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf vetoed the plan. According to the then Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, a senior US diplomat told him on 21 July 2001 that it had been decided to dispense with the Taliban "under a carpet of bombs."


Some people have reported that the US told the Taliban that they had better accept the pipeline deal and thereby receive "carpets of gold", or they'd be carpet-bombed, if they refused the "deal". I didn't initially plan to excerpt more than the first part of the article, up to and including where Marina is quoted saying that the Taliban made society safe for Afghan women, just that the Taliban were too religiously strict about wearing the burqa and schooling not being permissible for Afghan women. But the rest of what the article says is definitely not going to become outdated; it's definitely going to remain ongoingly relevant in a very important way. However, I won't quote the whole article and will just recommend reading it in full.

"America's Search for the "Good Taliban""

by Tom Burghardt,, March 15th, 2009

Reminiscent of a casting call for "America's Next Top Model," the Obama administration has embarked on a search for the ever-elusive "good Taliban" with whom it can negotiate a partial military climb-down.


After seven years of occupation and the slow bleed-out of a protracted war, the Pashtun populated southern Afghan provinces and Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are effectively controlled by a melange of far-right Islamist Talibs and drug-linked militias loyal to the Hezb-i-Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.


America's Search for the "Good Taliban"

Speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden claimed that "at least 70%" of Islamist Taliban guerrilla fighters were "mercenaries" who could be persuaded -- with what else -- cold, hard cash, to lay down their arms and join the "peace process."

According to Biden, "Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25% or so are not quite sure, in my view, of the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency. Roughly 70% are involved because of the money."

Memo to the Vice President: that "incorrigible" five percent comprise the top leadership of the far-right Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda-linked commanders such as "Mullah Bradar, Sirajuddin Haqqani and Anwarul Haq Mujahid. These three have pledged their allegiance to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who has transformed the Taliban into an ultra-conservative force compared to a few years ago when the Taliban were a Pashtun tribal movement," Asia Times reports.

That Asia Times article, which is not linked in the above article, is the following one.

"Pakistan adds to US's Afghan woes"
by Syed Saleem Shahzad, March 13th, 2009

Continuing with Tom Burghardt's article:

In other words, nothing short of a complete U.S./NATO withdrawal from the Central Asian "battlespace" will satisfy Mullah Omar and his minions. And what of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, suddenly everyone's newest "best friend forever"?

Dubbed the "Michael Corleone of jihad" by Asia Times, the sociopathic former Afghan Prime Minister who pulverized Kabul during the post-Soviet fall-out amongst mujahedin thieves in the early 1990s, is positioning himself for whatever he can grab.


Tom Burghardt follows the above paragraph with an excerpt of two paragraphs from the following Asia Times article, which is linked in the one by Tom Burghardt.

"Taliban set to burn the Reichstag?"
by Pepe Escobar, March 13th, 2009

Tom Burghardt then continued:

Lest we forget, this former darling of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) during the anti-Soviet jihad received the bulk of CIA-Saudi largesse as America's plan to hand the Soviet Union "its own Vietnam" worked splendidly -- for the international narcotics trade and American-linked terrorist jackals.

As Alfred W. McCoy pointed out, it was none other than Hekmatyar, with Hezb-i-Islami as the "beard" for rather profitable operations on both sides of the "Afpak" border, who pioneered refining heroin inside Afghanistan.


And as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime revealed in their 2008 World Drug Report, with Afghanistan currently producing 92% of the world's supply of illicit opium, that would give Hekmatyar literally billions of reasons to "get back into the game" as they say.


Excerpt from Pepe Escobar's article:


The hunt for the 'good' Taliban


"Taliban" of course is a supremely elastic denomination. The motley crew on the prowl for "good" Taliban should at least know who they are looking for.

Number one is the historic Taliban led by Mullah Omar, last seen escaping from American bombs and into legend in Kandahar province in the autumn of 2001 on the back of a 50cc Honda. US counter-intelligence aces know he is now based in Quetta, in Balochistan - Pakistan territory, with access to e-mail. But they haven't even been able to send him an SMS.

Number two is the Hizb-i-Islami (Islamic Party) of former Afghan prime minister and uber-warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; strictly speaking they are not Taliban.

Number three is the group of famous jihad commander Jalaluddin Haqqani - based in the Waziristan tribal areas of Pakistan.

Then there are at least three Pakistani Taliban groups - Mehsud, Gul Bahadur and the TNSM.

And finally any group of Pashtun peasants who hate foreign occupation (that's about everybody); had family killed by the Americans, NATO or the Pakistani army (a lot of people); or lost their opium poppy crops, which means their livelihood (many more are candidates for this as soon as Obama's surge troops hit Helmand province).

All these, on the Afghan side, account for no more than 15,000 people, according to the Afghan Ministry of Interior; but they happen to be very active, and reachable, in no less than 17 Afghan provinces. Certainly the more than 60,000 US and NATO troops, not to mention the 17,000 in Obama's surge, could engage them in a little more conversation.

The mullah is not in the coola

A case of Chateau Margaux 1982 can be bet on the fact that no one at NATO's round table knows how to deal with Hekmatyar - the man who chose to destroy Kabul in the civil war in the mid 1990s before the Taliban took power in 1996 (in fact he managed to kill more Afghans than Soviets).

Hekmatyar is the Michael Corleone of jihad. ... He wants a piece of the action in Kabul - preferably the meatiest part.


This means that the hunt for the good Taliban will have to be focused on first finding out, and then talking to, the Shadow himself - Mullah Omar.

And what would Mullah Omar tell all these suddenly talkative Westerners? He would tell exactly what Mullah Omar's close friend Mullah Mutassim, a former Taliban finance minister, told al-Samoud magazine two weeks ago: we want the US and NATO out of Afghanistan now, we want sharia law and we want absolutely no Western interference in our country.

Now what does Michael Corleone - oops, Hekmatyar want?

He's not Taliban. He's not al-Qaeda. He was a darling of the US, Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) during the jihad in the 1980s. He's not a fundamentalist - more like Muslim Brotherhood. The US Central Intelligence Agency tried to kill him with - what else - a Hellfire missile. He escaped.

This correspondent almost bumped into him in Kunar province in 2002 - to the astonishment of US troops on the prowl. Then the - who else - ISI helped him to regroup. Karzai offered him a not meaty enough piece of the action in Kabul. Pakistan released his brother from custody. China invited some of his associates to Beijing.

So everybody loves him - Karzai, Zardari, the ISI, the House of Saud, China and, sooner or later, the Obama administration. He may even get an offer he can't refuse. But there's a problem: he also wants the US and NATO out. And he's clever enough to try to fight a united Taliban flush with opium money and ultra- energized against the Petraeus/Gates counter-insurgency tactics. By the way, Hekmatyar was the pioneer of refining heroin inside Afghanistan, instead of just taxing opium.


Too many people use "Taliban" as if it generically represents all Afghan resistance groups and precision is what people should practice, instead. False labeling is dis- or certainly mis-info, which should always be avoided. Many Americans flamed against "the Taliban" for throwing acid into the faces of Afghan women and it was not "the Taliban" who did this. And there are other crimes they were accused of and that they did not commit.

We wouldn't accept it if we were all lumped up together. We might all be Americans, but Americans clearly and definitely are not all of the same views and actions.

Jeremy Scahill didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with the US "special" forces wanting to get out of Afghanistan and to, instead, go to operate in Somalia and/or Yemen, but there's a hell of a lot that's wrong with this.

The US has no right to be in these countries and the West LIES about what's really going on there. US "special" forces and all other US forces, military and contracted, need to be returned to the US and to then be kept there, permanently.

The articles referred to in this post are by date, most recent to oldest, but the definitely most strongly relevant one is the last one, "Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia?", of 2007. The more recent articles excerpted from, first, provide relevant short "bits" about and related to Somalia.

"Apocalypse in Central Africa:
The Pentagon, Genocide and the War on Terror

by Keith Harmon Snow, July 10th, 2010

I'll highlight where he mentions Somalia.

The U.S. "War on Terror" destabilizes popular governments, communities, and indigenous societies all over the globe. This has occurred more than anywhere else in the Great Lakes region of Africa, where people face absolute terrorism and grotesque atrocities -- the complete destruction of everything they know -- a.k.a. genocide.

But genocide in Congo is off the agenda, in keeping with the prerogatives of private profit, western big business, white supremacy, and the politics of genocide.[0]

The U.S. has for years intervened in the region -- U.S. multinational Union Carbide, for example, was in control of the SOMIKIVU mines in the Congo's Kivu provinces in the early 1960's -- but through an expanding military partnership with key agents in Central Africa since 1980, the U.S. interventions have produced an unprecedented loss of life facilitated by direct U.S. government polices, covert military operations and guerrilla warfare, all cloaked in euphemisms of "peacekeeping," "humanitarianism" and "development."

Now Rwanda and Uganda (Ethiopia right behind them) have become the Pentagon's primary bases of operations in Africa, from which scores of millions of dollars of military hardware and Pentagon-trained African proxy warriors are routed into Congo and Burundi, but also far beyond these to the Pentagon's theaters of operation in Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia -- even to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti.


The United States has a long history of supporting brutal regimes. The western mass media system provides cover stories and blankets the truth with propaganda campaigns -- a business area formally known as "perception management" -- devised by corporate nationalist foundation think tanks like the Center for American Progress, the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations.

General Augusto Pinochet came to power in a coup d'etat on the other September 11 in 1973. The United States backed Pinochet's reign of terror in Chile and other perpetrators of mass atrocities in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, Bolivia, and El Salvador. ...

The same story has unfolded in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, but methods of information control and perception management have been refined. People in Canada, Europe, and the United States are so misinformed that they contribute to deceptive do-gooder campaigns launched by big government contractors masquerading as charities, like Save the Children and CARE International, or other so-called non-profit organizations whose main business is really propaganda, like the ENOUGH Project -- funded by the Center for American Progress. But tax dollars are supporting brutal regimes committing the atrocities and causing the suffering people make donations for.

The media don't report the massacres, decapitations, dismemberments, and routine disappearances in Congo, and if they do the violence is attributed to African savagery, rather than terrorism as a military instruction (counter-insurgency, tactical operations, invasions and psychological operations) taught at the School of the Americas at Fort Bragg (GA) or at Fort Leavenworth (KA). The western news consumer has been sensitized to the mass rape occurring in eastern Congo, a cause that inspires hugely successful fundraising, like that of Eve Ensler's United Nations-backed V-Day Campaign, or for Ben Affleck's "humanitarian" charity in eastern Congo, but the narrative and discourse on rape blames the victims and shields or rewards the perpetrators. ... The public does not hear about the western interests involved, ....

Pinochet's reign of terror in Chile pales in comparison to the scale and nature of atrocities committed by the western proxies in Central Africa today. ...




The MONUC "peacekeeping" enterprise in Congo is a $1 billion a year operation involving contracts with PAE (Pacific Architect & Engineers, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin). AFRICOM, NATO and private military companies Dyncorp and PAE have also been training and flying Ugandan and Rwandan troops to the U.S.-European-Israeli wars in Somalia and Sudan (Darfur).

There are at least 300 Ugandans backing the US in Afghanistan and more than 10,000 Ugandans in Iraq, with more than 3000 Rwandans in Darfur and 2000 or more Ugandans in Somalia. An unknown number of Rwandan soldiers are also in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are allegations that "peacekeeping" sorties sent to Darfur, Sudan, may actually serve as cover for military personnel and hardware actually bound from Rwanda/Uganda to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


[18] Although Rwandan and Ugandan troops warred against each other in Kisangani, DRC, in 2000, and their leaders purportedly hate each other, these criminal networks have links, common interests, and equal culpability for ongoing terrorism in Central Africa, Sudan and Somalia.


"Death Toll in Congo Whitewashed Yet Again

A Brief Assessment of the Hidden Interests and White Obliviousness of the Human Security Report Project"

Keith Harmon Snow, Jan. 22, 2010

The western media is suddenly awash with reports claiming that the human mortality figures for the Democratic Republic of Congo have been greatly exaggerated or overstated. Challenging the already problematic estimates produced by the International Rescue Committee -- which were low and incomplete to begin with, never too high -- is a Canadian based think tank clearly covering up for western interests.

The International Rescue Committee certainly had a selfish motivation in producing counts of dead in Congo: the IRC, which is an intelligence agency, bills itself as a "humanitarian" agency involved with helping refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). The IRC in Congo does not actually help IDPs or refugees.


The basis for the new claims of exaggerated death counts in Congo is a report by an obscure entity called the Human Security Report Project (HSRP), a think tank claiming to be "an independently-funded research centre based at the School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada."

Examination of their reports, their interests and their funders shows very clearly however that the HUMAN SECURITY REPORT PROJECT (HSRP) and its people are definitive and unabashed apologists for western capitalism and the huge for-profit misery (read: humanitarian) business sector.

They are not in any way independently funded (see below). What does "independent" mean when you get all your money for the system that you are apologizing for?

The HSRP claims that global violence saw a major down turn in or since the 1990s, and that this is due to the successes and expansion of the humanitarian relief agencies and the so-called not-for-profit aid and charity sector.


Anyone who wants to be honest and understand the truth would read Ward Churchill's A Little Matter of Genocide. In the past two decades there have been more genocidal conflicts that perhaps ever before. The new HSRP report includes a table showing "the most conflict prone countries" from 1946-2003 does not even list Rwanda. By what sleight of hand is that possible? By the imperialist slight of hand where definitions relegate US violence to a just "war on terror."


As an example, they ignorantly opine: "In the case of Rwanda, for example, Uppsala estimates that fewer than 1000 people were killed in actual combat between government forces and rebels in 1994."

This is a cover-up for the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the "rebels" that bombarded the Habyarimana government (FAR) forces and positions, while also committing widespread massacres of civilians. It is also a cover-up for Canadian mining companies, western governments, and western consumers.

Again, in Southeast Asia, the authors attribute mass violence and genocide to the Khmer Rouge (1975-1979) without attributing genocide to the United States (in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, circa 1959-1975).

There is no mention of the genocidal campaigns ongoing against the San Bushmen in the Kalahari (South Africa and Botswana); against the Ogonis, Itsekeris, Ijaw, and others in southern Nigeria; against the Tuaregs in Niger; against the Penan people in Malaysia (; against the Aborigines in Australia, or the Hawai'ians and other native Americans; against the indigenous people of Namibia; against the Huarani in Ecuador; against the indigenous people of Congo and Uganda; against the Anuaks and Oromos and Ogadenis in Ethiopia; and against the indigenous peoples in Somalia (my emphasis), to mention a few of the more poignant examples.

On Somalia, where the US was deeply involved in atrocities in the 1990s, all that the authors have to say is this: "Other conflicts -- Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan -- involved the United States, a fact that alone ensured massive coverage by the US-dominated global media. The media focused on the new wars -- largely ignoring those that were ending."

The inference is that the U.S. media coverage of Somalia was a good thing, that it raised and raises people's awareness of what is actually happening in the world, rather than doing the exact opposite -- facilitating ignorance and inaction -- as it is designed to do. The authors say nothing at all about the U.S. or Canadian involvement in war in Somalia, and, looking at their other references scattered throughout, if they did it would be to praise the US and Canada for their humanitarian actions. In fact, the media coverage is horrible propaganda, dishonest and mythological, accusing people of Congo of tribalism and witchcraft, or accusing all Congolese men of being rapists, part of a "rape-friendly" culture, and never, ever, ever mentioning Banro or Moto Gold or Mwana Africa or Maurice Templesman or Walter Kansteiner.


"Africom's Covert War in Sudan:
The Winter of Bashir's Discontent

by Keith Harmon Snow, updated April 1st, 2009


Refugees and displaced populations are strategic tools of statecraft and foreign policy just as 'humanitarian' NGOs consistently use food as a weapon and populations as human shields. The history of the U.S. covert war in South Sudan is rich with examples of the SPLA and its 'humanitarian' partners, especially Christian 'charities', committing such war crimes and crimes against humanity. (See: keith harmon snow, "Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia?" Global Research, 7 February 2007.)


On 25 September 2008, a Ukrainian freighter was seized by 'pirates' off the coast of Somalia and was held until a ransom of $3.2 million was paid on 5 February 2009. (Somali fishermen disenfranchised by international dumping of toxic {and possibly nuclear} wastes off Somalia are labeled 'pirates' when they fight for their rights and freedoms.) The MV Faina is registered in Belize, owned by a company registered in Panama and piloted by Ukrainians. The MV Faina carried 33 Soviet T-72 battle tanks, grenade-launchers, anti-aircraft guns and ammunition en route to Mombassa, Kenya, the Pentagon's primary base on the east coast of Africa.


There are reports that weaponry also included tank munitions heads sporting deadly depleted uranium and that the final recipients are the Israeli-backed Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) 'rebels' in Darfur. Sudan has previously accused Israel of supporting 'rebels' in the Darfur war. International arms syndicates and dealers routinely transfer 'Soviet-era' arms for international organized crime, including covert military operations involving proxy militias and national governments in Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda.

Israeli fighter jets also attacked convoys in Northern Sudan in January and/or February, 2009. To justify the Pentagon-approved action, Israel and the establishment media and government officials universally claimed these convoys were shipping weapons from Iran to Hamas in the West Bank.

"Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia?
The New Old "Humanitarian" Warfare in Africa

by Keith Harmon Snow, Feb. 7th, 2007


The Western imperatives of geopolitical control meant that western corporations, intelligence networks and arms providers swooped in like vultures to prey on, manipulate or secure the allegiance of anyone and everyone, and on all sides of the borders with Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. With some 70% of Somalia mapped out into petroleum concessions by 1986, the competition for contracts, control and access was in full swing.


The vast petroleum reserves in Somalia are connected underground via the petroleum rift system of the Ogaden Basin, Ethiopia, and under the Straits of Hormuz to Yemen. Houston-based Hunt Oil maintains operations in the Oganden Basin, in Ethiopia, a short helicopter ride from Camp United, in Hurso, Ethiopia where the some 2000 plus covert forces of the 10th Mountain Division and 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment have been training Ethiopian soldiers in preparation for the U.S. invasion of Somalia in December 2006. ...


When on 6 January 2007 the New York Times ran flak to cover up the US invasion of Somalia, the article correctly described the US military mission of the early 1990’s — previously billed as a humanitarian mission — as a "failed attempt to capture a dictator." The article is an example of shameless propaganda, as simplistic and misleading in its attention to the geopolitical realities in Somalia as we see everywhere in the mainstream media coverage of "genocide" in Darfur. The article peddles the idea of an African "peacekeeping" force to quell violence in Somalia. Indeed, the New York Times presses the line that Western diplomats, including the visiting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, are "urging African nations to quickly put together a peacekeeping force before Somalia reverts to anarchy."

Nigeria, Uganda and South Africa have all "volunteered" troops for Somalia, the Times, noted. What the New York Times did not say, and has never flushed out, is that Uganda is a major base of US military operations in Central Africa, from which programs pursuing economic, political and military dominance are projected into DRC, Kenya, Somalia, and, especially, Sudan. Uganda and Kenya have provided the preponderance of support for the SPLA in South Sudan; Kenya and Ethiopia have both served as U.S. bases from which Special Operations Command (SOCOM) forces have been striking out and penetrating Somalia. Ethiopia seeks a major seaport currently denied by Eritrea: Somalia offers the perfect storm through which to pump out Ethiopian oil secured, for example, by the genocide of the Anuak and other minority people. Yet this genocide is off the radar of the "Stop Genocide!" coalitions and their extensive Genocide Intervention forces precisely because the government of Ethiopia — unlike the uncooperative and audacious Government of Sudan — is a U.S./U.K./Israeli client state.

In its reportage on Somalia the NYT has mentioned nothing about the private military companies and SOCOM operations that occurred throughout 2006, or of SOCOM covert operations training for Ethiopian troops at Camp United in Hurso, Ethiopia, both of which laid the groundwork for the escalated invasion of December 2006. It was a U.S. military invasion backed by Ethiopia, and not an Ethiopian invasion "giv[en] a yellow-slash-green light" by the U.S. as stated by John Prendergast of the International Crises Group (high on list of notable "spokesmen" everywhere pressing the "genocide" line on Darfur).


That article is long, but it provides strong reporting and analysis, and is wholly important. There's plenty more in it about Somalia, Sudan/Darfur, and some other African countries the US covertly has been targeting and is continuing to target.

US military forces and forces the US employs through contracts, mercenaries, need to be removed from everywhere they're located outside of the US and returned to the US.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.