http://www.veteranstoday.com

Critical Cargo

US 3D DIPLOMACY OF DOMINATION DOCTRINE:

DEMOCRACY, DOLLARS & DRUGS

By Colonel Eugene Khrushchev, Editor

Here’s a full transcript of my Q&A session where I fielded questions from a rambunctious Iranian journalist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourosh_Ziabari Kourosh Ziabari on US adventure in Afghanistan.

Q. There are reports indicating that since the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2003, the cultivation of opium has increased dramatically and the United States hasn’t taken any major steps to fight the drug trade in the war-torn country. You’ve written on this extensively. Would you please explain more about that? Is it a large-scale U.S. policy to condone the rise of drug production?

A Purportedly, the White House, whatever its political coloration, has been on the record against narcotics, at homeland and abroad. The grim reality is, much touted US War on Drugs is agitprop cover for US Drug War on us, worldwide.

Historically, Washington’s political, intelligence & military interference – into South East Asia, Sothern America, Balkans and Africa – has been followed by explosion of narco-production.

The United States doesn’t condone narcotics– it promotes drug production & consumption as a quintessential part of its undeclared 3D Diplomacy – democracy, dollars & drugs – to penetrate, corrupt & manipulate the countries from within.

Afghanistan is just the latest and the most glaring case study of grisly symbiosis & synergy between US boot print & local druglords, which has transformed the country into American narco reservation with more than 90% of opium & cannabis market share, quietly killing 100 000 annually, without any outrage in the mainstream media.

Q. Where is the war in Afghanistan heading to? Every day, we hear of more American and NATO troops being killed in bomb blasts along with more drone attacks on the unarmed civilians which bring destruction to the war-hit country that needs tens of years to be able to reconstruct its infrastructure. What’s your perspective on that?

What you postulated in the question – the war in Afghanistan – deserves a closer examination because all too often it’s misperceived as a vanguard of American GWAT, global war on terror.

Since 9/11, neither the White House nor the US Congress has declared any hostilities against any adversary anywhere, so in legal terms, America is not at war with anybody, including a smorgasbord of anti-government elements in Afghanistan.

However, it’s blatantly obvious, that America is neither at peace with Afghanistan, its neighbors or Muslim world at large.

In military terms, US occupation of Afghanistan, OED, Operation Enduring Freedom, is a type of unconventional mission, however impossible, which is a subdivision of asymmetrical warfare.

The most ‘unconventional’ thing about this Operation Enduring Opium, is to preserve & protect narco-democracy in Afghanistan under disguise of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency dog & pony show, while  sponsoring & schmoozing  with the frenemy and sometimes even shooting at them along both sides of the Duran Line.

On the other side, American mission in Afghanistan constitutes undeclared war against global security & stability where opium has been utilized as a hidden WMD, weapon of mass destruction & distraction to advance ‘chaos management’ strategy.

As for US KIA & MIA in Afghanistan, it’s just a drop in the bucket, compared to domestic homicide rate and Pentagon’s rape & suicide body count. In a sense it’s a bargain with American blood & treasure for the 3D Diplomacy of Domination Doctrine.

Until Afghans sober up from American ‘greed is good’ values, and switch from war & drug profiteering to soul-searching, they will remain low-maintenance narco slaves & mules in US reservation, deprived from faith and national  self-identity; fighting for democracy, dollars, & drugs.

Q. Do you agree with this American assumption that the Afghan National Army is incapable of providing security for the country without the U.S. presence? Is it a good justification for the continuation of the military presence of the United States in Afghanistan?

If would be unfair to present US stance  on Afghanistan  as undisputed consensus, because there has been no unanimity of views between US military, intel & diplomatic communities on Afghan affairs, including operational readiness of the  ANSF, Afghan National Security Force .

Whatever the White House assumptions on the issue, it cuts both ways.

On the one side, under US/NATO guidance, ANSF is unwilling & unable to take full responsibility and provide security & stability for the country.

On the other side, the US has stubbornly refused to get a reality touch that having spent billions of dollars, the Pentagon is in fact, training & financing the enemy: the current ANSAF is the future auxiliary force for the Taliban and the spiraling trend of the green-on-blue attacks is a harbinger of things to come.

Yes, for the US it’s a self-defeating approach to continue to train the Afghan Army and police, but paradoxically, this pseudo strategy offers a cynical excuse for permanent US residual force and occupation of Afghanistan.

Q. Would you please tell us more about the Red Team Study which investigated the mutual perceptions of the Afghanistan army soldiers and the NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan? It seems that they are not much friendly toward each other and vent different grievances toward each other. What’s your take on that?

Since September, I have posted a sequel on Afghan/American military & security ‘partnership’, based on the first Pentagon Red Team Study on the subject, which was foolishly re-classified after the embarrassing findings had already been spilled into the public domain.

Obviously, there’s no love lost between Afghan green and American blue forces, but the situation  is much worse than  just a lack of friendship and camaraderie between alien & indigenous ‘partners’.

The title of the report defines the problem as ‘A crisis of trust and cultural incompatibility’; I call it ‘bloody credibility gap’ http://rt.com/news/blogs/friendly-fire/unfriendly-fire-green-on-blue/  and ‘Afghan hatred vs. American disgust’ http://rt.com/news/blogs/friendly-fire/afghan-hatred-american-partnership/.

The initial idea behind the Red Team studies at the Pentagon was to play ‘devil advocate’ for the established policies and procedures, this time for US training mission in Afghanistan.

To the dismay & horror of top brass, this Red Team finding has accidentally revealed the main legacy of US occupation – top-down across the board institutionalized corruption, fueled by drug production in a host country.

However, the author came perilously close to the inevitable self-incriminating conclusion: it is nay to impossible to advocate devil’s design & deleterious deeds behind American pernicious policy in Afghanistan.

Q.What do you think about the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement? Will this agreement pave the way for the continuation of U.S. presence in Afghanistan after the troops’ withdrawal of 2014? Won’t such an agreement be detrimental to the interests and security of Afghanistan?

Well, if the American mentors themselves consider Afghan army & police force ‘a joke’ and are pretty outspoken about opium poppy puppet regime they hate but have to bolster, what kind of ‘partnership’ are you talking about?

The Afghan/American security misalliance is a livid example of smoldering antagonism, punctuated by point-blank green on blue stings; therefore by default any agreement between master and servant would be unilaterally enforced or violated at the whim of the overlord, notwithstanding the lofty legal verbiage committed to paper.

It is not this or the follow-up SOFA, Status of Forces Agreement between Washington & Kabul, which per se is detrimental to the future of Afghanistan.

It is open-ended US occupation – overt before 2014 and covert later – that constitutes clear & present danger to Afghan, regional and global security.

.