What is abundantly clear is that the U.S. has not been thrown out of Afghanistan. Quite the opposite.
A so-called interim Afghan government is to be headed by Prof. Ali Ahmad Jalali, who just so happens to be a US citizen.
“Regime Change” in Afghanistan? Troop withdrawals coupled with a US sponsored color revolution?
14 November 2013 — WashingtonsBlog
It is well-documented that the U.S. government has – at least at some times in some parts of the world – protected drug operations.
19 April, 2010 — Strategic Culture Foundation
While the Kyrgyz interim government was searching for the bank accounts of ousted President K. Bakiev, and Belorussian President A. Lukashenko invited him to settle down in Belarus, Moscow bloggers published a sensational finding: they unearthed evidence that the coup in Kyrgyzstan was backed by the US and that the whole intrigue revolves around the transit of drugs from Afghanistan.
On April 18, Oriental Review, an English-language blog based in Russia, published a text titled «Kyrgyzstan Destined To Become Another Narco-State?». It points to the facts that drug crops in Afghanistan surged since the dispatch of the US and NATO forces to the country and that the neighboring Kyrgyzstan became the key transit hub on the route – known as the Great Heroin Way – via which drugs from Afghanistan are delivered to Europe and Asia.
28 March, 2010 – RT.com
NATO and Russia have failed to reach a consensus in a tug of war over tackling the Afghan drug problem. The alliance has rejected Moscow’s appeal to eradicate opium poppy fields in the Islamic Republic.
5 March, 2010 – Strategic Culture Foundation
The development of the situation in Afghanistan over the last 12 months has been influenced by the new US strategy approved by President Barack Obama in April 2009. As opposed to the strategy of George Bush the strategy of Obama’s government implies not only strengthening US and NATO military presence in the country but also trying to solve the country’s domestic problems: poor economy, corruption, drug traffic, inefficient government, weak local armed forces and police. However drug traffic is not seen as a very important issue because considering that the consumption of Afghan drugs in the US is smaller than in Europe. Also within the new strategy Obama also linked Afghanistan with Pakistan into one knot of problems called ‘AfPak’.
Until recently we have not seen any significant changes in the Afghan policy of Washington. In January-September of 2009 the US government officials were mainly busy with the problem president presidential elections in Afghanistan, shuffling numerous possible candidates in Kabul. Another couple of months they were thinking about the controversial results of the elections and finally with heavy heart they agreed to recognize Hamid Karzai (who they were sick and tired of) as the reelected president. Than the White House and the Congress began to work on a ruling on bringing more troops to Afghanistan. In December 2009 and January 2010 Washington was preparing for an Afghan conference in London and only in February operation Mushtarak was launched in Helmand province, which was the beginning of practical implementation of the new strategy.
Can Obama Assassinate Americans?
By Nat Hentoff
The executive branch alone decides who shall die instantly. And there are no defense attorneys to raise objections, even when an American citizen is marked for oblivion.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24888.htm
The Picture
By David Glenn Cox
I want you to look very closely at this picture and try and keep it in your minds eye. This was a perfectly healthy twenty two-year-old young man who in the service of his country got half of his head blown off. I think that’s important, I think that’s newsworthy.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24891.htm
Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama
By Chris Hedges
We owe Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney an apology. They were right about Barack Obama. They were right about the corporate state. They had the courage of their convictions and they stood fast despite wholesale defections and ridicule by liberals and progressives.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24889.htm
25 October, 2009 — Global Research
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Obama Presidential agenda is how little anyone has questioned in the media or elsewhere why at all the United States Pentagon is committed to a military occupation of Afghanistan. There are two basic reasons, neither one of which can be admitted openly to the public at large.
Behind all the deceptive official debate over how many troops are needed to ‘win’ the war in Afghanistan, whether another 30,000 is sufficient, or whether at least 200000 are needed, the real purpose of US military presence in that pivotal Central Asian country is obscured.
Even during the 2008 Presidential campaign candidate Obama argued that Afghanistan not Iraq was where the US must wage war. His reason? Because he claimed, that was where the Al Qaeda organization was holed up and that was the ‘real’ threat to US national security. The reasons behind US involvement in Afghanistan is quite another one.
The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world’s largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia.
7 August, 2009 — Strategic Culture Foundation
When I suggested to my esteemed editor a column on Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan I was reminded of the axiom be careful what you ask for. I quickly learned that one could easily do a fair sized book on the subject!
As a boy brought up in a British style home I read English stuff like G.A. Henty s “With Cliva in India”. Afghanistan was a murky place full of fierce Pathans, now called Pushtins which the courageous British had to tame. (It s amazing how many peoples the British seemed to have the need to tame back in those days). It was reading “Caravans” by James A. Mitchener that piqued my curiosity as he described real people, different nations within the nation, with a distinct culture, or perhaps I should say cultures of their own. I also learned that for some strange reason they didn’t t appreciate the cultural offerings of the British, or anyone else for that matter, going back to and including Alexander the Great! You might conquer Afghanistan but it never stayed conquered.
4 December, 2008 Global Research
Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghan history and the role played by the United States.
Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet “invasion” of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as “a good thing.” The actual story is not such a good thing.
18 July 2006
“And, that while the Taliban reduced poppy cultivation to virtually zero in 2001, Washington and its allies are watching over the mother of all opium harvests this year.” — July 15, 2006, Paul McGeough Chief Herald Correspondent in Kabul, Sydney Morning Herald
A friend sent me a link to a BBC ‘From our own correspondent’ story straight from the bowels of an outpost of the imperial empire, Afghanistan, from an elegant cocktail party celebrating the ‘victory’ of the Empire over the ‘heathen hordes’.
29 December 2003
There is a direct correlation between imperialism’s increasingly desperate economic state and its urge to go to war, only now it’s declared war on the entire planet, a sure indication of capitalism’s inability to deal with its inbuilt and rapidly escalating contradictions. Consider the wars it has declared over the past 100 years: the ‘war on communism’, ‘war on drugs’, the ‘war on crime’ and of course the latest war only now it’s called ‘terror’, a meaningless catch-all phrase that’s ideal for a propaganda campaign but useless as an explanation.
The New Dark Age 
