Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Pentagon Paying Taliban Who Are Killing US Troops

Posted by Bruce Wilson, Talk To Action at 8:44 AM on November 12, 2009.


DoD Pays Off Insurgents So Supply Convoys Can Get Through

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Politics in your
mailbox!

 

"It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting." - Aram Roston, The Nation


Why has president Obama chosen to reject all options, on Afghanistan, presented by his national security team ? Perhaps he's come to believe that the American military enterprise in Afghanistan may be untenable.

A new article in the November 30, 2009 issue of The Nation, by Aram Roston, should be a game changer. As Roston reveals, "US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents."

Afghan government security officials told The Nation, "It's a big part of their income."

In short, the United States is funding Taliban and Afghan insurgents who are killing and wounding US troops. But why ? An evil plot ? Not exactly.

Washington decision makers have tasked the US military with what may be an impossible job in Afghanistan, and a good deal of the reason it may be impossible lies in the very, very long trucking routes, winding through some of the most mountainous and rugged terrain on Earth, that supply US troops.

The Pentagon doesn't have enough forces to defend the supply convoys that bring food, water, bullets, equipment of all sorts to American troops stationed at remote command posts in hostile Afghan territory. So, it contracts with a welter of private Afghan contracting firms that have sprung up to take the lucrative supply business. As the Nation article lays it out,

the heart of the matter is that insurgents are getting paid for safe passage because there are few other ways to bring goods to the combat outposts and forward operating bases where soldiers need them. By definition, many outposts are situated in hostile terrain, in the southern parts of Afghanistan. The security firms don't really protect convoys of American military goods here, because they simply can't; they need the Taliban's cooperation.


Jon Soltz and Richard Allen Smith, writing for Vet Voice (a project of VoteVets.org), provide some additional and very helpful perspective,

When Blackwater massacred civilians in Iraq it certainly hindered our counterinsurgency efforts. It wasn't, however, as if they were directly funding the insurgency we were fighting.

No, the private security contractors saved that tactic for Afghanistan.

Writing for The Nation, Aram Roston has uncovered a tangled web of former military and CIA officials, relatives of the Afghanistan President and Defense Minister and various other shady characters who act as a pipeline from the U.S. treasury to the Taliban...

Here's how the chain works: The U.S. government pays trucking firms to move supplies around Afghanistan to its rural and far flung outposts. These trucking companies then pay private security contracting firms, operated by druglords, warlords, the Taliban and relatives of senior Afghan Administration officials, or consortiums of any or all of them, for safe passage to American installations. As one American trucking executive said, ""The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money.""


This is simply an updated version of the madness Joseph Heller described in his savage parody of a WW2 US bomber unit, Catch-22. There's always a perfectly logical reason at each stage in the progression from point to point :

"A" ("we must supply our troops") to "B(1)" ("But we don't have the manpower to protect the supply convoys!") and from "B(2)" ("Well, we can't hire Blackwater because they'll wind up committing a massacre and that will fuel the insurgency") to "C(1)" ("OK, we'll hire Afghan contracting firms but they can't carry heavy weaponry to defend against insurgents and bandits or they'll also wind up accidentally killing lots of civilians, just Blackwater would") and then on to "C(2)" - ("Alright, money will fix everything. We'll pay the contractors lots and lots of money and they'll figure out how to make it work.") And so the contractors take the money and pay off whatever local powers they need to pay off in order to get the truck supply convoys through.

It works out differently from company to company. In some cases, as Roston describes, Afghan contracting firms simply pay the Taliban directly, and Taliban vehicles escort the supply convoys. One Afghan private security official tells Roston that most of the escorting is being done by Taliban. The Afghan government intelligence service suggested to the Americans that they should take the money they're paying to the Afghan trucking supply contractors and instead spend it to set up a single, heavily armed, professional service. As Roston drily puts it, "the suggestion went nowhere."

In essence, the US is doling out cash to Taliban and saying, "don't attack us there, attack us over here":

The Taliban take that money, buy their own weapons and supplies, and attack the Americans at the newly resupplied forward command posts. Lots of bullets and RPG rounds fly about, Americans die, Taliban die, maybe a helicopter gunship gets called in, maybe it gets shot down, maybe it kills some Taliban, maybe they run away first and go back to extorting some more money from the supply convoy that will come to resupply the munitions-depleted American forward command post.

And so on.

Soltz and Smith bring up the necessary recourse and talking point:

"The Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees must investigate the allegations contained therein. We simply cannot continue to put brave men and women in harms way while are tax dollars are funding that harm.


It's a point that will fly in red-state and blue-state American alike.
We're paying to send American troops to Afghanistan and we're also paying Afghans insurgents who will see to it that those troops come back in caskets: a crazed, pointless machinery of death.





Digg!

Tagged as: afghanistan, taliban

Bruce Wilson writes for Talk To Action, a blog specializing in faith and politics.


Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
In debate leading to vote, McCain compared Reid to Madoff, Hatch invoked socialism, and Lincoln promised trouble ahead
Post by Adele Stan. November 21, 2009.
ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
For the trembling patriots of the right.
Post by Steve M.. November 21, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
F.U.B.A.R.
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 12, 2009 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The much praised counter insurgency is Iraq was nothing more than cash paid to Iraqis NOT to kill Americans. And they stopped. Money talks. Afganistan is chaotic and Obama's Ambassador there has suggested that no more troops be sent until Kharzi can restore at least some order. Nothing about the place works. I feel sorry for the people living under such awful conditions but I can't imagine what Americans can do about it. The present state of affairs in Afganistan is not new. Perhaps we can help in the form of humanitarion aid: food, medical supplies and other basics. The fact is, they don't want us there. That ought to be enough. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IDIOTS!
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 12, 2009 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/m

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taliban: "They're like the police department for wiseguys."
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 12, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Awesome Catch-22 analogy by Bruce Wilson. "Goodfellas" also pops into mind: the Taliban... paid a weekly tribute by crooked wiseguy contractors who can't go to the cops.

"Paulie hated conferences. He didn't want anyone hearing what he said... or anyone listening to what he was being told. Hundreds of guys depended on him, and he got a piece of everything they made. It was a tribute, like in the old country, except they were doing it in America. All they got from Paulie was protection from the guys trying to rip them off.

"That's what it's all about. That's what the FBI could never understand. What Paulie and the organization does... is protect people who can't go to the cops. That's it. They're like the police department for wiseguys." -- Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), voiceover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Also... Afghanistan Casino Royale
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 12, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ace Rothstein (Robert De Niro), "Casino" voiceover:

"At that time, [Afghanistan] was a place where millions of suckers flew in every year on their own nickel... and left behind about a billion dollars. For guys like me, [Afghanistan] washes away your sins. It's like a morality car wash. It does for us what Lourdes does for humpbacks and cripples. And along with making us legit... comes cash, tons of it."

"I mean, what do you think we're doing out here in the middle of the desert? It's all this money."

"This is the end result of all the bright lights... and the comp trips, of all the champagne... and free hotel suites, and all the broads and all the booze. It's all been arranged just for us to get your money. That's the truth about [Afghanistan]. We're the only winners."

"The players don't stand a chance."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

folks, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee . . .
Posted by: charles000 on Nov 13, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Golly gee - rampant corruption and support of a fake government while paying protection money to Taliban warlords in Afghanistan?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you - alert the media, round up the usual suspects!

OK, all kidding aside -

I have an exit strategy suggestion for President Obama - let's get out of Afghanistan now, today.

The attacks of "911" were the supposed reason for going into Afghanistan, ostensibly to round up or eliminate Osama Bin Ladin and his comrades.

Instead, the Bush / Cheney crime cabal utilized the 911 attacks as a springboard for their corrupt and ill-fated PNAC doctrine, and invaded Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 911, or for that matter, the mysterious non-existent WMDs

That was then, this is now.

Why are we in Afghanistan today?

Well, let's see . . . golly gee, you don't think that a pipeline deal that was been in the works for years might have anything to do with this?

Hmmm . . . big energy/industrial complex multinational conglomerates, utilizing US military operations to suit their interests, where have I seen this before?

Well, anyway . . .

Look, here's the deal.

Afghanistan is not a country, it's a region of tribal entities who have been cobbled together into a "sovereign nation state" by the western world, an invented country contrived to suit geopolitical regions on a map.

In case this sounds a bit familiar, let's review, shall we?

Most of the countries in that region, including Pakistan, and virtually all of the countries in the middle east, with the quasi-exception of Iran, were created this way . . . lines on a map, invented by various government and corporate entities from the western world, to suit their own self interests, completely to the exclusion of the people who happen to actually live in these regions.

When India finally gained independence from England, the restructured new government had to endure the complex and painful process of purging Muslims out of India to start their own new country - Pakistan.

This arbitrary cookie cutter approach to arranging pieces of a geopolitical jigsaw puzzle to suit the western agendas would eventually become a festering pathology of tribal and quasi-political movements and conflicts, bubbling away in a cauldron of chaos.

Even in those early times, there were many who warned of a storm brewing on the horizon, but to no avail.

Now we are witnessing this storm, coming in hard and fast.

President Obama has a very strange and almost incomprehensibly complex dilemma on his hands - I do not envy the position he is.

But this much I do know with absolute certainty.

Any attempt at creating so-called "off ramp" exit points in the Afghanistan strategy is going to have the same outcome - continued "mission creep", as an endless stream of military "advisors", troops and support are poured into the region with the hope of creating some sort of pseudo government, and in the blink of an eye, whenever that mission ends and we leave, the co-called government there will simply disintegrate into a collection of tribes, and a handful of absurdly corrupt fake government officials.

I've seen this very game plan implemented in another region of the world, in a "country" referred to in modern times as Vietnam.

I visit a wall of black granite, with 55,000 names carved into it, including some names which are personally familiar to me, whenever I'm in Wash DC, names of those who disappeared into a maelstrom of war and misery, for a mission with no definable "victory" or exit strategy, for a hopelessly corrupt fake government that would never be able to exist without our presence.

Any questions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]