The New START Treaty – The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that was signed by President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev on April 8, 2010 was approved with 71-26 votes by the United States Senate.

New START Treaty between the two largest nuclear states – United States and Russia ratification replaces the original START Treaty signed in 1991 that expired on December 5, 2009.

The importance of containing the nuclear proliferation and strategic offensive arms is no longer an option but an immediate requirement in the highly volatile global environment increasingly posing greater risks without checks and balances in the critical nuclear and conventional arsenal stockpiles.

It was elaborated on this website when the related article titled – “U.S. and Russia Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty” was published on March 27, 2010 under National and Global Security in the Politics category.

Accordingly the measures adopted in the New START Treaty is a preliminary step to curtail the discretionary expansion of the strategic offensive arms comprising the ICBM ( Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), SLBM (Submarine launched Ballistic Missiles) and nuclear warheads constituting major threat to national and international security.

On this important day we remember the brave hearts who volunteered to sacrifice their precious life for their nation and humanity at large.

The cherished freedom would not be possible without the selfless dedication of the young men and women in uniform who willfully offer their service for national and global security.

However, war should never be an option against peace and diplomacy. The simultaneous wars in different parts of the world today have claimed many innocent lives including casualties suffered by the duty bound armed forces in the battle grounds.

It has resulted in enormous pain, grief and agony for the victims’ families all around.

Besides, the economic liability from the relentless wars is exacerbating the national deficit for the U.S and the global economy.

Only if the funds were instead invested in social and economic development the terror recruitment would substantially decline allowing peace to dawn on the war torn regions.

Although many are reminiscent of the past victories and argue about the necessity to go to war for territorial conquest or eliminating authoritarian rule,

They also forget that independence, civil rights and many humanitarian goals were achieved through peace and non-violence by the venerable leaders.

The lesson from history is to pursue peaceful means i.e. constructive dialogue and meaningful strategies as preventive measures than adopting military options.

Violence begets violence and is not the ideal response to belligerence. The incredible loss of life during war cannot be resurrected and nothing can possibly compensate the human tragedies from the horrendous war crimes.

It’s important for the world leaders to pause and deviate from the decisions to engage in war. There are no winners in war considering the inevitable bloodshed, carnage and destruction shared by all warring factions.

There is an urgent requirement for denuclearization and strategic arms reduction to ensure global security. Universal policy is imperative for the nuclear disarmament and conventional stockpile containment.

In other areas of warfare, the veterans and their families are often neglected despite their patriotic duty to the country.

Not all human beings can pledge their life to serve the nation in a combat environment and those who come forward to do so are uniquely honorable. Every one of these individuals deserves national appreciation for their tremendous contribution towards security, freedom and humanitarian deeds.

It’s important to maintain the federal run VA health care and rehabilitation programs for all service members and their families.

Further, the government assistance to the veterans’ families with housing, education and other social services are equally essential to help them cope with the economic hardships while their family members are engaged in active duty or otherwise. It’s the least any nation can do for the armed personnel deployed in various parts of the world.

Since the contemporary wars are conducted for reasons beyond national defense, the exorbitant military spending has taken precedence over critical life dependent programs for the vulnerable population in the society.

Sadly, in the materialistic world life is easily dispensable. The present is dictated in monetary terms and,

Profit is regarded as the Prophet.

Nevertheless, the world is still intact as there are great many humanitarians, unsung activists in every corner tirelessly devoted to improve life on earth.

On this day when the parents, young widows, widowers and orphaned children experience sorrow and pride in loving memory of their dear ones,

The nation acknowledges the armed forces and national guards’ significant sacrifices for others.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

In the twenty first century, the war is interestingly waged in Islamic nations around the world.

Beginning with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestinian Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem, Yemen, Chechnya, Somalia and Sudan with skirmishes in Central Asia as seen in the recent Kyrgyzstan with Uzbek Muslims largely massacred in ethnic violence –

Terrorism and insurgencies are the by-product of relentless warfare and foreign policies fostering political instability in turn exacerbating economic and social development.

The trend is prevalent to date.

Afghanistan – The former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney started the war in 2001 declaring the terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden will be captured “dead or alive.”

Even the message resonated in the 2008 Presidential campaign with Senator John McCain as the Republican Presidential candidate pledging –

“I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.”

The Democratic Presidential candidate, the then Senator Barack Obama essentially repeated his predecessor’s rhetoric –

“Bush had earlier vowed to catch bin Laden “Dead or Alive,” and … “My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. …”

We are in 2010 and the war is a decade old with tremendous loss of lives on all sides.

U.S and allies economy drained with the superfluous troops and financial investment, the troops’ low morale after continuous deployment and the public war fatigue at its peak,

Afghanistan today is still in the medieval age under the U.S. and NATO appointed Karzai administration that has been unanimously criticized for massive corruption and lack of direction in governance.

Meanwhile, Taliban leaders in Afghanistan are reportedly held hostage by the Pakistani military and ISI prohibiting them from initiating negotiations with the Afghan government to demonstrate Pakistani officials’ clout in the crisis.

Superseding these issues is the Al-Qaeda ring leader; Osama Bin Laden neither captured alive nor pronounced dead, a convenient situation to prolong the unsustainable war strategy.

If Osama Bin Laden is alive as it is claimed by the authorities, it raises the following questions:

Given the formidable U.S. and NATO forces in operation and the significant troops involvement since the war began in 2001, the severely incapacitated Osama Bin Laden remains at large according to the political and military high command.

Further, the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel prior to his departure last week is quoted to have questioned the administration on this issue with a statement in sheer amazement.

“We are spending about $50 billion on intelligence and we still don’t know where Osama Bin Laden is?”

Despite CIA overt operation through para-military in Pakistan and the Pakistani intelligence provided with U.S. intelligence assistance, the mastermind Osama Bin Laden cannot be found in the all too familiar territories Afghanistan where the U.S. trained the Mujahedeen, prominently Osama Bin Laden who later created the terror network ‘Al-Qaeda,’ is;

Remarkably similar to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that could never be found because it did not exist.

Any re-creation or resurrection accentuates the flaws due to the unauthentic replay leading to the fact that the scenario is ‘weapons of mass deception’ in the public eye.

Besides the former President George W. Bush family’s close ties with Osama Bin Laden’s immediate family is common knowledge and such relation enabled the Bin Laden family departure from the United States when all flights were grounded soon after 9/11.

Another compelling factor being Osama Bin Laden was not apprehended in Tora Bora even though the armed personnel requested for the former President George W. Bush, the Supreme Commander- in- Chief’s order for action.

These events were legitimized by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the terror experts, the media reports and cited by Senator John McCain during his Presidential bid.

The strange predicament being Osama Bin Laden is wanted “dead or alive,” and when there were opportunities to capture the terror leader, the executive order was not delivered to the armed forces to attain the goal.

Terror warnings are being issued claiming that Osama Bin Laden is preparing to wreak havoc in Europe like he did in Mumbai that took place on November 26, 2008, even though this particular terror activity was directly linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and acknowledged by the assassin;

“Ajmal Kasab, the only attacker who was captured alive, disclosed that the attackers were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant organization. He said the attackers came from Pakistan, and their controllers were in Pakistan.”

Osama Bin Laden is continually used in the possible terror attacks and claimed as the primary target in the war on terror with no news regarding his whereabouts and sources except during the terror alerts surfacing upon Osama Bin Laden reference by the peace activists.

It’s crucial to resolve this issue once and for all considering the brave young men and women in uniform are deployed to supposedly eliminate Al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden in the mission that began in 2001.

Many service men and women are serving for nearly a decade with some redeployed after having been in Iraq for four to five years. Most of these courageous frontline soldiers sacrificed in the on-going war are in the age group between 19 – 21 years old and have barely experienced life.

If a 29 year old private sergeant is killed in action after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan for twelve straight years and survived by his young pregnant spouse and a toddler and the war agenda is still a mystery then it becomes necessary to find out,

What exactly are we doing in these battle grounds?

As per the latest CIA report, along the Pakistan-Afghan border – Waziristan, there are fewer than one hundred Al-Qaeda members and negligible Taliban forces compared to U.S representation around 120,000 troops with NATO alliance.

Regardless the world’s most powerful by far the sophisticated U.S. and NATO contingency with all the imaginable resources at their disposal are experiencing difficulty over nine years in seizing the fractional terror members with inferior ammunition is astonishing for it defies logic.

Therefore, if the military commanders in the best interest of the troops, the nation and the international community could unequivocally clarify on the precise mission in Afghanistan and particularly, present the facts on Osama Bin Laden it would be enormously helpful in the decisions related to ongoing wars and defense spending during legislation and election.

Above all, the Afghan population deserves the truth for they are severely dispensed with their family generations wiped out in the ceaseless conflict.

If the Al-Qaeda leader is alive, it shouldn’t be harder to locate with the intelligence dragnet across the globe perhaps within twenty four to forty eight hours and brought to justice.

Alternatively, it would be honorable to declassify the classified public information and submit the verifiable facts on the Al-Qaeda leaders’ death.

As for all issues concerning the military operation, the President of the United States being the Supreme Commander-in-Chief bears complete responsibility.

The defense and the national security team are accountable to the President – responsible for the troop level authorization, withdrawal timeline and final approval on war strategies.

In the Afghan war, the information on the ultimate authority in the decision-making process is not clear.

While it is being maintained that there is disconnect and discord between the military and the civilian exchange on operational matter and that the President is not briefed on vital military positions such as the actual troop numbers by the top security adviser and military command,

It is suggested that any dissatisfaction in the Afghan war status quo should be attributed to the military command and not the civilian authority, the President of the United States who is also incidentally, the Commander-in-Chief.

This is contradictory to the latest occurrence that involved the military’s top ranking official
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, removed by the President of the United States for ‘off-the’ record comment about the administration,revealing the authority in control.

Now in the expansive military role especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan taking horrendous toll on human lives and economic costs, the ambiguity in management as to,

“Who is calling the shots,” is rather disturbing and,

Require clarification to the armed forces and their families including the taxpayers footing the expense for the extravagant and uncertain adventure.

In that context, the exclusive secret meetings held for the selective members belonging to nexus organization apparently to discuss global economic health and the general humanitarian issues with the press and public debarred from participation is unsettling based on the discussions being related to the world population and not any private individual matter.

In fact, the nature of such gathering by the privileged members – selective heads of the state, corporate leaders and military command, a majority representing democratic societies alienating the voice of democracy – the communication media and the public is undemocratic not to mention the forum failing to meet transparency and accountability.

These meetings where the Presidential candidates as the future leader of the ‘free world’ prior to being approved by the electorate are summoned inconspicuously defying the press and denying access to the democratic process in itself is a serious credibility factor and beckons legitimate reasons on the definitive purpose.

It’s imperative to highlight the security measures taken during these sessions reflecting the twentieth century pre-world war II characteristics in the twenty first century causing frustration among the members in the society from various discipline gravely concerned about the abnormal clandestine consortium.

The public opinion upon revelation on the political, economic, corporate media and military institutional assembly behind closed doors to map out global direction is;

If it is conducted to benefit humanity then it is commendable and praiseworthy.

But then, why not hold them in public view and elaborate on the objectives to the republics’ complete satisfaction eliminating any doubts on the validity of the futuristic aspirations.

In conclusion, the fulcrum power has two immediate priorities to stabilize the deteriorating global environment predominantly due to incessant warfare and undemocratic principles adopted in the universal policies targeting humanity.

Disclosure on Osama Bin Laden and dismantling secret organizations – the deafening silence thus far proved detrimental to human progress in every frontier.

Any reluctance to conform or evasion through false propaganda and negative attacks would categorically confirm the “Who is Who” and the intrinsic aspects of –

‘The New World Order’ inevitably setting itself for a disastrous end.

Humanity thrives with consolidated contributions benefiting all and not a ‘specific society’ in the globalization concept.

Peace and perseverance to make this world a better place for all inhabitants is the natural path to prosperity.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

The global economy is still far from recovery and most nations are dealing with austerity, Europe in particular much against their population will.

Meanwhile, among them an overwhelming majority have disproportionate defense budget that is not targeted in the spending cuts. United States has an exceptionally higher defense expenditure that is invariably passed with bipartisan approval regardless of the political party in power.

Whereas, the other life threatening issues concerning jobs, health care, social security, housing…are usually subjective to filibuster and marginalization at the worst resulting in a meaningless final product.

The contemporary society is currently confronted with the so-called war on terror. Although terrorism took birth in the twentieth century predominantly through Middle East conflicts, it escalated in the twenty first century with 9/11 becoming the premise for relentless warfare fomenting terrorism seeing no end in sight.

After two world wars to contain imperialism, fascism and ‘Great Depression,’ the expectation among the international community was long lasting peaceful environment with the governments focused on alleviating poverty, hunger and disease contributing to a healthy habitat for all living beings.

Subsequently the United Nations Charter was created with the U.N. Security Council formation comprising the five nations – United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France maintaining the status quo until now, despite the titanic shift in the economic realm over the latter part of the twentieth century leading till date.

The authorities then in power with the responsibility to establish peace and harness diplomatic relations, instead steered in the opposite direction with communism rising in the former Soviet Union, Germany in the West and the entire Eastern Europe as well as China influencing South East Asia.

It’s noteworthy that the arms race proliferated rather than being terminated at the end of world wars with the United States and the then Soviet union followed by the remaining Security Council members successfully conducting their nuclear test that empowered them as the largest nuclear arsenal holders and continue to remain so.

Further, the U.N. Security Council members’ illegal invasions and occupations in the aftermath of the world wars proceeded throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty first century with certain occupied territories annexed as the regional state again at the prevailing horrendous humanitarian plight such as Tibet, Palestinian territories and the disputed regions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The cold war between the two major powers – the United States and the Soviet Union vying for ‘Super Power’ status caused the ‘United Nations’ to split with the two contenders choosing partners conciliatory to their respective political positions at that time.

In the sixties, it is also well known that the cold war brought the two major powers on the brink of nuclear confrontation with the Cuban Missile crisis.

Notwithstanding the Korean War notably the significant armed Cold War conflict with the reunification negotiations eventually evolved into a proxy war sponsored by the three U.N. Security Council members – the U.S., Soviet Union and China.

The infamous Vietnam War spreading to the neighboring Cambodia and Laos certainly aroused the anti-war sentiments in the United States and around the world at its peak but it did not necessarily deter the wars in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East with the United States and the other permanent U.N. Security Council members involved in almost all of them either directly or indirectly as the arms supplier including the combat forces viz. Afghanistan on the ground.

Increased military aid to Indonesia in 1977 at the height of the East Timorese massacre produced more than one-third i.e. around 200,000 East Timor population deaths in war related starvation, disease and atrocities.

Likewise in 1978 the military aid to Central America against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and similar assistance to El Salvador compounded the regional turmoil with incredible loss of lives from brutal killings.

In 1979, the U.S. tax payers’ approximately $40 billion dollars investment to train Mujahedeen in Afghanistan generated Osama Bin Laden.

Arguably, the United States footprints in Latin America and Middle East are comparatively prominent with the other members concentrating in their region, Central Asia and Africa.

However, the genocide from the civil wars in Africa through the permanent U.N. Security Council members’ arms trade and distribution was entirely ignored since 1991 and up until now – such as the Democratic Republic of Congo referred to as ‘African World War,’ Burundi, Rwanda earlier on, and Darfur, Sudan.

It’s imperative to mention Haiti during the Democratic and Republican administrations’ at the White House going back to 1977 when agreements were made to decline Haitian refugees asylum claims and between 1990 and up until now – the Democratically elected popular leader Jean Bertrand Aristide indefinitely exiled in South Africa.

The combined powerful U.S.and NATO forces delayed intervention in Bosnia, Herzegovina or for that matter regrettable deliberation on Rwanda rescue operation could be regarded worthwhile, leaving other missions a territorial conquest and/or an economic interest.

It’s obvious that the military industrial complex war strategy is the same with the players alternated between the two major political parties in the United States and the trend replicated in other western democracies as the permanent U.N. Security council members.

Twentieth century wars fought in the regions desperately seeking economic and social development were categorically denied the opportunities to merge with the rest of the world converting those nations into a fertile ground for terror recruitment.

Therefore, the cyclical violence is a revenue source for the conventional and the nuclear weapons industry at the horrendous loss of lives and economic cost.

That raises many questions surrounding the wars and the global community priority in the tough economic times. They are evaded with no logical explanation often confirming the doubts in the public mind.

The war architects owe the domestic and international citizenry evidence based legitimate reason for the decade old conflicts severely affecting the weak and the vulnerable in the so-called war on terror.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

On September 24, 2010, the United Nations held a “High-level Meeting on Revitalizing Disarmament Conference” attended by 65 nations’ dignitaries in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Conference objectives were to initiate discussions on the –

Biological and Chemical weapons,

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and,

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) including,

START – Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,

PAROS – Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space and,

Last but not the least – Nuclear States threats against non-nuclear nations.

Although the statements from these organizations’ representatives and U.N. members defined the international community role and the urgency to begin nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament discourse, the session ended in an impasse.

The reason behind the unsuccessful outcome is attributed to the Multifaceted Treaty’s one aspect and that being,

The FMCT – Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty reportedly blocked by Nuclear Pakistan insisting on the Fissile Material Treaty fairness and effectiveness on the whole, an identical position shared with its Nuclear neighbor India.

The fissile material related to the plutonium and uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons capability is crucial in the disarmament dialogue to implement a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

In fact, Pakistan’s position in this regard is absolutely legitimate and worth examining.

Pakistan’s claim that FMT mandate be internationally incorporated and multilaterally verified to accommodate the majority nuclear and non-nuclear states’ national security concerns comparable to “equal security for all,” principles is in direct alignment with India’s request.

India has raised the legitimacy and credibility factor surrounding all treaties i.e.

Non-Proliferation, Nuclear disarmament focused on FMT, PAROS, START and negative security assurances for they are all at present severely lacking in accountability and transparency among the NPT-5,

The U.S and Russia in particular as the pioneers currently in possession of over 95 percent world’s nuclear arsenal.

Poignantly, the very first nuclear disarmament and permanent ban on nuclear testing was set forth by the First Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954 – the nuclear era with conspicuous disdain for nuclear ban proposals that is evidently prevalent until now into the twenty first century.

Subsequently, India remained persistent and called for an international convention in 1978 prohibiting the nuclear weapons use or threats against any nation followed by,

A daring initiative in 1982 submitting to the United Nations – a “Nuclear Freeze,” on fissile material production facilitating nuclear weapons and related delivery systems.

Further, in 1998 India put forward an Action Plan comprising phased elimination for all nuclear weapons and WMD within a specified timeframe setting the cornerstone in the nuclear doctrine.

None of the nuclear weapon states with far more nuclear potential responded to the cause then or for that matter now in the CD conference.

Pakistan and India share the sentiments in the non-cooperation and disingenuous display by the real players the NPT-5 with a burden of responsibility to exemplify their verbal commitments through actions that is being demonstrably evaded as the privileged Security Council members.

All the more reason for the imperativeness to expand the U.N. Security Council permanent membership with broad representation by nations such as Japan, Brazil, India, South Africa, Germany, Norway, Turkey and UAE besides the extensive diversification called for in the recent CD Summit only to be ignored denying global interest.

Had the powerful nuclear weapon states engaged in earnest participation with appropriate and definitive content mutually agreeable to third party verification in the nuclear treaty throughout the twentieth and twenty first century, the world would not be dealing with nuclear proliferation or terrorism.

Even the new START agreement between U.S and Russia signed in 2010 is subjective to ambivalence on both sides based on past experience specifically –

The exchanges with Kremlin during the former President Ronald Reagan START introduction referred to as SALT III at that time and evaluated by the American arms control advocates as;

“A deceptively equal-looking, deliberately nonnegotiable proposal that is part of what some suspect is the hardliners’ secret agenda of sabotaging disarmament so that the U.S. can get on with the business of rearmament.”

Similarly, the then Soviet Union had not disclosed the ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles) data accurately in the submission.

Such inconclusiveness in the international security matter since the nuclear age precipitated the nuclear and conventional arms race to an unprecedented and unsustainable level.

The repetitive failed attempt to invigorate meaningful disarmament talks is a cliché in the contentious yet easily resolvable issue.

Moreover, the notion that U.S, Russia, China… are responsible nuclear states while disqualifying others from the league is a misnomer considering the status quo and proved detrimental to the nuclear deterrent policy for it encouraged defiance against compliance.

The unanimous frustration and disappointment among the non-elite nuclear states and the vulnerable non-nuclear NPT nations leads to a concrete decision in enforcing;

The universal CTBT – Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ‘entry into force’ rule effective immediately beginning at the fissile material ban targeting both supply and production in the present and the future.

Pursuant to NPT article VI, CTBT entry by force would have a profound impact on the NPT obligations binding the NPT and non-NPT nuclear states along with non-nuclear NPT countries.

Forced entry CTBT statute would reveal the observance or the lack there of by the respective nuclear and non-nuclear States.

It would also determine the Treaty viability and the multilateral apparatus adherence to NPT apart from restricting the sophisticated nuclear weapon upgrade or new development by any or all.

A worldwide Monitoring System and a neutral committee dedicated to NPT and WMD elimination would concurrently phase out the nuclear weapon prospects and systematically retrieve the stockpiles from all parties commencing with the major stock holders i.e. United States, Russia, France, U.K. China and others.

The grievances expressed by the scapegoats earlier India and now Pakistan in the CD failure,

Arguably found in the consistent setbacks on all treaties pertaining to conventional, WMD and nuclear weapons suggesting the so-called summits frame work designed to weaken rather than strengthen the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation institutional policies aimed at the regional and international peace and security.

Given the facts on the ground with the relentless and widespread violence through warfare, the agenda do not match the false exhibits in the previous summits.

Therefore, the United Nations General Assembly members consolidated commitment to global peace and security could be made possible by –

Forging the U.N. Security Council permanent membership expansion and,

Implementing the CTBT to accomplish the non-violation and irreversible NPT complemented by strategic and general weapons substantive and complete disarmament.

The U.N. members at the general assembly could essentially review and restructure the umbrella organization policies to conform to the twenty first century in every respect.

Non-nuclear NPT and nuclear states have a unique opportunity to change the dynamics with a paradigm shift by being inclusive not exclusive in the nuclear negotiations eventually resulting in pervasive nuclear disarmament.

The ICBL (the International Campaign to Ban Landmines) treaty is also vital in the disarmament process with certain key powers not having ratified the protocol despite the staggering toll on the children and economically disadvantaged population across the globe.

Again, the collective pledge to safeguard life and the planet is guaranteed to produce the desirable result –

A peaceful, prosperous and unified world.

Good Luck and Best Wishes to the United Nations and nexus organizations for phenomenal success in the humanitarian goals.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

With reference to the preceding article May 30, 2010 titled U.S. Military Espionage – Directive for Global Operation:

It’s clear from the reports that the signed directive promoting espionage through troops deployment around the world would be an invasion of sovereign nations apart from undermining the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

The U.S. is officially engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen that has claimed millions of lives with the Afghan war surpassing Iraq in the U.S. troop casualty reaching 1000 mark.

Notwithstanding death toll of service members reportedly as part of “Operation Enduring Freedom,” in the Philippines, the Horn of Africa and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
————————————————————————————————–

Per AP report on May 29, 2010, titled U.S. records 1000th death in Afghan war by Robert H. Reid

“More have died in past 10 months than in first 5 years, the death toll for this month alone being 32 in 29 days with more expected in the aggressive campaign this summer.

In the past 10 months, at least 313 U.S. service members have been killed in the war – more than the 295 who died in the first five years of the conflict.

More than 430 of the U.S. dead were killed since January 2009.

The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has now surpassed the total in Iraq – roughly, 94,000 in Afghanistan compared with 92,000 in Iraq.

In 2008, the U.S. force in Afghanistan numbered about 30,000.”
————————————————————————————————–

Secret War Ramifications Continued – By Padmini Arhant

That being the grim reality, the elaborate scheme to accentuate the military role throughout the world in the mission against “war on terror,”

Despite the ongoing conflict spanning nine years in Afghanistan and eight years in Iraq including the escalation in Pakistan via drone attacks, missile strikes from Navy ships in Yemen producing immense loss of lives and economic liability is tragic if not outrageously ambitious.

Sadly, the universal dissent for the invasion and occupation in Iraq and the prolonged war in Afghanistan is ignored with a false presumption of winning the wars that has contributed to political instability, scores of deaths, alarming national deficits and anti-Americanism.

Now with a new strategy involving troops regardless of size on clandestine military activity would be provocative creating opportunities for militancy to continue their resistance by plotting against innocent civilians in the United States and their domicile.

Such offensive plan with utter disregard for the individual national security measures maintained and coordinated by the majority in global terrorism is likely to generate more adversaries than allies.

Again, the recent terror plots have been thwarted by the courageous unarmed civilians on flights and ground level as witnessed in the Christmas bomber or The Times Square conspiracy.

The terror suspects and offenders invariably use the invasion and occupation as the reason for their participation in the violent attacks when they try to win the local population support.

Peace and diplomacy to resolve disputes is no longer an option in the aggressive military action setting the world stage for a dangerous outcome in the nuclear era.

Unfortunately, the military command’s secret war across the globe appear to have little or no concern for the troops’ safety as shared by the military officials revealing the truth about the risks upon the brave service men and women being captured as spies and denied Geneva Convention protection,

Thus, allowing the rivals to justify their treatment of the captives similar to the detainees’ experience in Bagram Air base and the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In addition, the crisis is worsened by the private contractors’ apparent sportive shooting incidents of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fomenting deep resentment against the hiring authorities for their failure to investigate these crimes.

Continuation of torture, prisoner abuse, denial of Habeas Corpus and federal trials as opposed to military tribunals are few of the many human rights violation attributed to the citizens’ protest in the nearly decade old battles.

The cyclical violence through suicide bombings and explosives used by the militants is counteracted with drones and improvised explosive devices by the military in the perpetual warfare, leaving the victims – the civilians, the troops and their families endure the indefinite combative environment.

Terrorism is being redefined by the frustrated population of the war zones and the potential targets as the one involving the insurgents and the other ‘state sponsored,’ displaying the sophisticated artillery in their possession, with neither willing to ceasefire.

Understanding the population plight due to the lack of freedom, political stability, economic prospects and social justice is not a priority for the warring factions.

If it were to be the case, the leadership in Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti…would represent the electorates’ choice and not be the external political power nominees.

Usually, the U.S. legislative process is gruelling on pertinent issues viz. the economy, health care, energy and environment with the exception of overwhelming bipartisan support for war funding.

Poignantly, per the current report – the Senate passed the $58.8 billion war funding 67 – 28, a dozen Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted for the 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan against the jobless benefits before Memorial Day, suggesting that the Senate will not hold any more votes until senators return from their holiday break June 7.

The legislators in favor of deficit reduction have approved the Afghanistan troop surge funding while declining their votes for the average Americans’ interest forcing the House Democratic leaders to drop the following provisions in response to the deficit concerns:

$24 billion for states to help cover Medicaid costs.

$6.8 billion to provide health insurance subsidies to the jobless under the COBRA program.

$22 billion to provide a 19 month reprieve from a scheduled 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors.

Further it’s reported that “Spending cuts demanded by Democratic moderates unhappy about voting to increase the deficit will mean layoffs next year by state governments and no health insurance subsidies for people laid off after Memorial Day.”

Evidently, the spending cuts required for deficit contraction is directed at the population’s nerve center – jobs and health care over the insatiable appetite for redundant warfare resulting in the loss of precious lives sacrificed by the valiant troops and the vulnerable civilians.

The misplaced priority in the two conflicting options – lifesaver and fatalities is attention worthy.

Contemporary policy embracing war and aggression on all sides defies the conventional wisdom that violence begets violence leading the world to go blind in the revengeful act.

Non-violence means empowered with empathy for one another is far more powerful in attaining global peace and harmony.

On the Memorial Day weekend, our nation salutes the fallen heroes for their patriotism and commemorates those serving at present as well as the members in the past.

Fresh beginning awaits humanity celebrating life through peace.

Thank you.

According to the latest news reports obtained from the defense officials and military documents, an extensive clandestine military operation is ordered by the Middle East top U.S. commander to intercept militant groups or threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other African countries.

Courtesy – The New York Times report, May 25, 2010 – By Mark Mazzetti titled:

“U.S. Oks secret war on terror by military – Iran among likely targets of special operations order”

Washington -“The secret directive, signed in September by Gen.David Petraeus authorizes the sending of U.S. special operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces.

Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said.

Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” al-Qaida and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by U.S. or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries..

In broadening its secret activities, the U.S. military also has sought in recent years to break its dependence on the CIA and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant U.S. troop presence.

Petraeus’ order is meant for use of small teams of U.S. troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.

But some Pentagon officials worry that the expanded role carries risks.

The authorized activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or incite the anger of hostile countries like Iran and Syria.

Many in the military also are concerned that as U.S. troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.

The precise operations that the directive authorizes are unclear, and what the military has done to follow through on the order is uncertain.

The document, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, provides few details about continuing missions or intelligence-gathering operations.

Several government officials who described the impetus for the order would speak only on condition of anonymity because the document is classified.

Spokesmen for the White House and Pentagon declined to comment.

The Times, responding to concerns about troop safety raised by an official at U.S. Central Command, the military headquarters run by Petraeus, withheld some details about how troops could be deployed in certain countries.

The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.

The Obama administration insists that, for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that, Obama authorized a strike.

“The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed,” said one Pentagon official with knowledge of Petraeus’ order.

The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, signed Sept. 30, also may have helped lay a foundation for the surge of U.S. military activity in Yemen that began three months later.

Special operations troops began working with Yemen’s military to try to dismantle al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s terror network based in Yemen.

The Pentagon has carried out missile strikes from Navy ships into suspected militant hideouts and plans to spend more than $155 million equipping Yemeni troops with armored vehicles, helicopters and small arms.

Officials said that many top commanders, Petraeus among them, have advocated an expansive interpretation of the military’s role around the world, arguing that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.”

Thank you.