Obama War To Defend
The Opium Traffickers by
Michele Steinberg
April 1—In a special edition of the
LaRouche PAC Weekly Report of March 31 (published in this issue), Lyndon
LaRouche said that the center of the strategic battle against the British
Empire is Afghanistan.
Remember, ... there's a war going on
in Afghanistan. In this war, the United States, under the present President, is defending the right of the drug-traffickers to
continue to operate without interference. We're fighting a
war—we're sending troops in, to kill and be killed in Afghanistan, in order to
protect the drug-traffickers! These drug-traffickers are also the major source
of support for control of Russia. Because they harm Russia, ... like the recent
[bombings] that just happened in Moscow. These are things which were done, and are being done against the
United States, by killing our troops, in Afghanistan—with the President's
permission, and encouragement!
At the same time, the same forces,
the same group of people who were behind 9/11, are operating against Russia,
too, now. And will operate against other nations.
And Obama is practically committing
an act of treason, by sending U.S. troops into area, to be killed, by the logistical force which Obama is defending. If that isn't tantamount to treason, I don't know what is.
While the U.S. protection of the
British-sponsored opium production in Afghanistan started under the Bush-Cheney
Administration, it was Obama who ended all eradication of opium,
and ended the efforts to eliminate the drug lords and traffickers who fund the
Taliban and other insurgencies.
The background to Obama's treason, from
Spring 2008 to the present, is summarized here:
Chronology
Spring 2008: EIR
researchers begin exposing the opium-protection policy in Afghanistan, after
receiving detailed briefings from veterans of the Afghan War, who describe that
the military targetting of the "narco-khans" (drug lords), opium and
heroin warehouses, or drug traffickers is absolutely forbidden under NATO rules
of engagement. Only "terrorists" and "insurgents" can be
militarily targetted, and a decision by the NATO Council in Brussels would be
required to change the rules of engagement. The Bush-Cheney Administration had
totally backed the British, who occupied the opium-producing areas of Southern
Afghanistan, and whose policy is to protect the opium fields and trafficking.
Under the direction of LaRouche, EIR
publishes a series of articles and special reports documenting the connection
of the opium traffic to the financing of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. EIR
identifies the role of Dubai—a British-run money-laundering banking center—and
other offshore banking havens, as the centers that must be closed down to cut
off the logistical flow to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Aug. 1, 2008: EIR
reports:
There is now full recognition within
U.S. military circles that the commanders of the Taliban, and Taliban's
al-Qaeda allies, are funding their armies—as EIR
warned more than a decade ago—with opium and heroin trafficking, as well as a
newer, burgeoning empire in hashish production. One U.S. intelligence source
stated that more than $100 million a year, directly from the opium grown in
Afghanistan alone, goes directly to the Taliban, for its military operations.
The source put the overall monetary
value of the Afghan opium trade now accounting for 93% of the world's opium
production last year at approximately $160 billion....
July 27, 2008: Thomas Schweich, a former top
counter-narcotics official in the State Department, steps forward to expose the
opium empire in Afghanistan that had grown under the NATO occupation. In a New York Times Magazine feature article,
Schweich writes,
Over the next two years [from July 1,
2006], I would discover how deeply the Afghan government was involved in
protecting the opium trade by shielding it from American-designed policies.
While it is true that [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai's Taliban enemies finance
themselves from the drug trade, so do many of his supporters. At the same time,
some of our NATO allies have resisted the anti-opium offensive, as has our own
Defense Department.... The trouble is that the fighting is unlikely to end as
long as the Taliban can finance themselves through drugs and as long as the
Kabul government is dependent on opium to sustain its own hold on power.
Schweich reports that the Bush
Administration's backing for Karzai's insistence that aerial eradication of
opium fields be ended, was fatal to the counter-narcotics effort. He shows how
forcing the U.S. anti-drug forces to use manual eradication has led to U.S.
troops fighting farmers and tribal leaders, when the U.S. forces tried to seize
opium fields. Such manual eradication was deliberate sabotage by the British
and the Bush Administration. Competent anti-drug experts in the U.S. knew, from
the successful experience in Colombia, that other effective non-lethal means
were possible.
July 30, 2008: Gen. Barry McCaffrey (USA, ret.),
the former head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President
Bill Clinton, submits his report on Afghanistan to Col. Michael Meese at West
Point.
EIR endorses McCaffrey's findings in an
Aug. 7 press release, and reports:
McCaffrey writes: 'Afghanistan is in
misery.' Sixty-eight percent of the population has never known peace, life
expectancy is only 44, and Afghanistan has the highest maternal death rate in
the world.... The atmosphere of terror cannot be countered mainly by military
means. We cannot win through a war of attrition.... Afghanistan will not be
solved by the addition of two or three more U.S. combat brigades from our
rapidly unraveling Army.'
Instead, McCaffrey argues that, in
addition to building up the Afghan security forces, economic measures are also
required. He calls for the deployment of a 'five battalion Army engineer
brigade ... to lead a five-year road-building effort employing Afghan
contractors and training and mentoring Afghan engineers.... The war will be won
when we fix the Afghan agricultural system which employs 82% of the
population.... The war will be won when the international community demands the
eradication of the opium and cannibis crops and robustly supports the
development of alternative economic activity.'
McCaffrey pointed to the tremendous
growth in the poppy crop since the U.S. invasion in 2001 and warned that
'Unless we deal head-on with this enormous cancer, we should have little expectation
that our efforts in Afghanistan will not eventually come to ruin.'
August 2008-January 2009: EIR
publishes feature articles continuing to detail the Afghanistan opium/heroin
traffic connection to terrorism, including the November 2008 attack by Islamic
extremist narco-terrorists on Mumbai, India. The LaRouche movement organizes
among elected officials, and military and intelligence professionals, to force
a change in Afghanistan strategy to eliminate the opium traffic, and thereby
cut off the logistics for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Jan. 16, 2009: EIR's
cover story on how to combat the drug trade is published under the title,
"Drive the Narcos Out of the Americas." It includes excerpts from a
Fall 2008 report by General McCaffrey on Mexico, which called for a joint
U.S.-Mexico anti-drug fight, "Colombia Nearly Disappeared by Negotiating
with Narcoterrorists," and "How Drugs Can Be Wiped Out, Totally"
(which explains how crops can be wiped out using high-tech, non-lethal methods);
LaRouche's 1985 fifteen-point plan to combat narcoterrorism; and "George
Soros, Britain's Drug Kingpin Waging War Against the Americas."
January 2009: There is a short-lived victory for
the anti-opium strategy in Afghanistan, with the news that Gen. Bantz John
Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the highest military
commader in Europe, had approved NATO military operations against drug
traffickers, narco-lords, and drug refineries and warehouses in Afghanistan.
But, on Jan. 28, the German news weekly Der
Spiegel reports on a leaked classified NATO document, in which
Craddock approved the targetting of narco-traffickers and the bombing of
narcotics laboratories in Afghanistan. After a violent backlash from several
NATO countries that support legalization of drugs, the policy is shelved, and
shortly thereafter, Craddock's rotation as SACEUR ends.
Enter Obama
March 2009: Obama's Special Envoy for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, announces in Brussels that the
poppy eradication effort in Afghanistan has been ended because it is
"wasteful" and is driving Afghan farmers "into the arms" of
the Taliban, because it destroys the farmers' livelihood. Holbrooke downplays
the significance of drug money in financing the insurgency, and lies that the
United States and NATO will focus efforts on interdicting narcotics shipments,
and on stopping money laundering. No such actions are carried out against the
Afghanistan dope trade, and instead the Taliban insurgents continue to make
major gains in Afganistan—financed by dope money.
A George Soros-linked
pro-legalization website, www.stopthedrugwar.com, gleefully welcomes
Holbrooke's denunciation of opium eradication, and claims the decision as a victory
for the march towards drug legalization. Holbrooke had been a business partner
of Soros, the world's leading drug legalizer, in a biomedical company.
May 11, 2009: Obama suddenly fires Afghanistan
commander Gen. David McKiernan, and replaces him with Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
McKiernan was widely reported to have been favorable to SACEUR General
Craddock's decision to target narcotics operations and laboratories.
With the Holbrooke declaration and
the McChrystal appointment, any effective U.S./NATO operation against the dope
traffic that is financing the Islamic extremist terrorist operations, from
Afghanistan to the Northern Caucasas to Moscow and Mumbai, India, is ended.
No comments:
Post a Comment