Secretary Clinton Insults Hazara Shia Regarding Massacres in Afghanistan

Matthew Nasuti

Hillary Clinton with Jon Corzine, the Chairman & CEO
of MF Global Holdings. Mr. Corzine is currently under
Congressional investigation for “losing” $1.2 billion in
investor funds.

Bland “condolence” press statement appears drafted by junior clerk

The December 6, 2011, press statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an insult to the Afghan people and to the estimated 60 Hazara Shia who were massacred in dual bombing attacks in Kabul and Mazar-e Sharif. Posted on the Internet web-site of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the statement “strongly condemns” the attacks, finds them “deplorable” and vaguely extends “condolences” but then goes on to praise “the progress of the last 10 years” and ends with standard talking points about America’s vision for Afghanistan. This bland announcement contains the same stock phrases that have been used in dozens of previous press releasese. In addition it is inappropriate to use the massacres as a vehicle to restate U.S. policy and tout “progress” (which appears sorely lacking at this point in time).

The press statement also borders on being racist. In reviewing prior Embassy announcements regarding other incidents in Afghanistan, the State Department takes a different tone when Westerners are killed or Western interests attacked.

Kabul Brothels Continue to Service NATO

Matthew Nasuti

Al-Qaeda does not have to make up stories about the West abusing Muslim women. Al-Qaeda merely has to report the truth.

The unofficial message from the West to victims of oppression is:

“We will liberate you as long as your women agree to service our officials and contractors.”

That is a sad reality of both NATO and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

The U.S. State Department’s “Trafficking in Persons Report 2010" highlights the continuing growth of brothels in Kabul following the U.S. invasion in 2001. Many of the victims are poor Afghan women. A press release issued on January 13, 2011, by the U.S. Embassy in Kabul blamed the scandal on lax enforcement against traffickers by the Afghan Government, with no recommendation that the “johns” or clients be prosecuted (because many of them appear to be NATO and U.N. officials and their contractors). The most that the U.S. Embassy would meekly say is that:

“Some international security contractors may be involved in the sex trafficking of these women.”

(It is interesting how ineffective U.S. intelligence agencies seem to be at determining brothel ownership in Kabul, despite the importance of the issue due to the use of these facilities by NATO officials)

This issue is not new. The British newspaper “The Sun” ran a story on April 7, 2008 entitled: “NATO Men Romp in Afghan Brothels.”

Sun Defense Editor Tom Newton Dunn detailed how NATO troops were observed drinking contraband alcohol and heading off to rooms with prostitutes. It quoted a NATO official as stating that one out of every five NATO civilians in Afghanistan frequent these brothels. The report quoted Afghan Member of Parliament Shukria Barakzai as stating that if this conduct continues: “They will undermine their reason for being here.”

Navy SEALs “Take Out” 12 Year Old Afghan Girl

Matthew Nasuti

Pentagon pressure to increase the body count is to blame

On May 12, 2011, a U.S. Navy SEAL team killed a 12-year old Afghan girl named Nelofar Muhammed and then shot her uncle once in the chest, finishing him off with a shot to the head, execution-style. This is the same tactic [allegedly] used to kill Usama bin Laden. The SEALs then filed a false report with NATO/ISAF claiming that Nelofar was armed and fleeing and had to be shot! In reality the SEALs had attacked the wrong house, Nelofar was killed while she slept and her uncle was a 25-year old Afghan police officer named Shukrullah. At this time the SEALs are not under arrest and judging by the Pentagon’s history, there will be no prosecutions for these crimes.

The facts in this case are not coming from NATO or U.S. Special Operations Command but from the Afghan police in Nangarhar Province and from Nelofar’s father Neik Muhammed. The home that was attacked belonged to Neik. Officer Shukrullah was his brother-in-law. According to Neik, the Americans attacked without warning at midnight by throwing a hand grenade into the family’s yard where they were all sleeping because it was too hot to sleep inside. Nelofar was killed instantly by shrapnel to her head. Officer Shukrullah then pulled his police pistol to protect the family. He was shot and then finished off. The Americans later apologized to Neik for the killings. Officer Shukrullah leaves behind a wife and two daughters.

In the United States, television anchors such as CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and ABC News’ Kiran Chetry have embraced euphemisms in order to protect a sensitive American public. SEALs do not kill people - they “take them out.” Women and children do not die, they are merely “collateral damage." The idea is to make war sound surgical and fun with no pain or horror. Graphic photos of SEAL killings are never shown so as to spare the American public from the ugly realities of its wars. With that in mind Mr. Blitzer and Ms. Chetry would likely have no problem with the title of this article, or perhaps they would begin to realize that killing another human being should never be sanitized. War is horrible for a good reason - so people will avoid it at all costs.

The standard Pentagon and NATO refrain is that accidents always happen in wartime. The fact is that civilian killings many times can be avoided. Not every civilian death is inevitable. Some are true accidents, some are the result of military carelessness and sometimes a few are due to such reckless conduct that they warrant criminal prosecution. American law defines an “intentional act” to include a situation where the suspect acted with gross negligence or reckless disregard. Under U.S. law the killing of little Nelofar may well have been intentional.

Pentagon Has 400,000 personnel in-theater for its Afghan War

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

Specifics regarding this covert escalation are now “classified”

Last month, the Boston Globe’s Bryan Bender reported that the United States has 155,000 troops into Afghanistan. Mr. Bender appears to have obtained his information from the Office of U.S. Senator John Kerry. This reporter contacted Mr. Bender and Senator Kerry’s office. Neither would confirm nor deny the number.

On February 7, 2011, this author contacted General David Petraeus’ headquarters in Kabul and asked for the current number of American military personnel in Afghanistan. This would include those “assigned” to the country and those on TDY to Afghanistan. U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John L. Dorrian responded that the information was classified.

The Pentagon has refused to disclose to Kabul Press the total number of American military personnel presently in Afghanistan. Surprisingly that figure is “classified." Kabul Press’ investigation has revealed that the total U.S. military, civilian and contractor force in the region exceeds 400,000 and is growing. In military parlance, these personnel are “in-theater.” This covert escalation may signal that conditions on the ground in Afghanistan are deteriorating faster than expected, thus necessitating a second unannounced surge.

Killing each Taliban soldier costs $50 Million; Killing each NATO soldier costs $50 Thousand

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

The West simply cannot afford to continue to fight the Taliban.

The military-industrial complex is a voracious beast that demands its daily fix at the trough of the American taxpayers.

It costs $50 thousand to kill each NATO soldier while it costs $50 million to kill each Taliban soldier. It is therefore 1,000 times cheaper to kill a NATO soldier; a fact that does not seem to bother the Pentagon, NATO’s leadership or European defense ministers.

Kabul Press, on September 30, 2010, published an article by this author detailing the best estimate of Taliban killed per year (2,000) divided by a portion of the direct costs that the Pentagon is spending each year in Afghanistan ($100 billion). The resulting statistic suggests that it costs $50 million to kill each Taliban soldier. This number is very conservative. If all NATO and American costs (direct and indirect) were included, the analysis would reveal that it actually costs about $150 million.

The present article examines spending from the Taliban side in order to comparatively determine what it costs to kill each NATO soldier. The Brookings Institution is the consulting firm with the best political access to the Obama Administration and the U.S. State Department. In September 2009, it published a report on Taliban annual revenue, based in part on data gathered by the Congressional Research Service. Brookings estimated Taliban annual income at between $140 and $200 million. The Taliban have already inflicted over 600 deaths on NATO soldiers and more than twice that number of fatalities on Afghan army and police personnel. By the end of the year, total Coalition deaths are expected to reach 3,000. The math is unfortunately easy. Assuming Taliban revenue of $150 million divided by 3,000 = $50,000 to kill a NATO, American or Afghan soldier.

Was aid worker Linda Norgrove’s killing really “accidental?"

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

It is premature for the international media to conclude that Ms. Norgrove’s death was “accidental.” It appears increasingly likely that UK citizen Linda Norgrove was killed on October 8, 2010, by an American fragmentation grenade. If true, its use may violate U.S. Army rules and could be grounds for a criminal prosecution. Pursuant to American and British law, conduct that is sufficiently “reckless” can support a charge of intentional killing.

What is also disturbing is that at least some American military personnel concocted a false cover story and tried to blame her death on the Taliban. Instead of telling the truth, these Americans were willing to have her family believe that she died in the horrible explosion of a suicide vest detonated by her captors. The BBC’s October 10, 2010, headline was: “UK Hostage Linda Norgrove Killed by Vest Bomb

The Daily Mail, on the same day, reported that she had been “blown up by a suicide vest.” These are dreadful headlines for any parent to read. The motive for falsely accusing the Taliban of murder may be to distract the public from asking important questions.

Killing each Taliban soldier costs $50 Million

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

"Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion"

The Pentagon will not tell the public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have become too expensive an enemy to defeat.

Each month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information. Regardless, some information has been collected from independent sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:

1. Taliban Field Strength: 35,000 troops

2. Taliban Killed Per Year by Coalition forces: 2,000 (best available information)

3. Pentagon Direct Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion

4. Pentagon Indirect Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion

Using the fact that 2,000 Taliban are being killed each year and that the Pentagon spends $200 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan, one simply has to divide one number into the other. That calculation reveals that $100 million is being spent to kill each Taliban soldier. In order to be conservative, the author decided to double the number of Taliban being killed each year by U.S. and NATO forces (although the likelihood of such being true is unlikely). This reduces the cost to kill each Taliban to $50 million, which is the title of this article. The final number is outrageously high regardless of how one calculates it.

Afghan Girl Killed by Reckless U.S. Mortar Fire

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

"A gunman fired a few cents worth of AK-47 rounds at the U.S. Marines and in response the Marines probably fired $10,000.00 in mortar rounds that all missed their target, yet killed an innocent. This incident could sum up the entire Afghan war and helps explain why American efforts have largely failed."

On July 28, 2010, reckless mortar fire by U.S. Marines ended the life of a 14 year old Afghan girl named Gul Makay. Her name مکئ ګل is that of the heroine in the famous Pashtun folk tale of Musa Khan. The Marine unit, according to Time Magazine’s Adam Ferguson, was the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. The location was the “liberated” Afghan district town of Marjah in Helmond Province. The Marines had been fired upon by a lone gunman 250 meters away in what appears to be a semi-residential area. In response, the Marines radioed for indirect fire support. A nearby outpost thereafter fired an unknown number of mortar rounds into the area. The suppression fire apparently chased away the gunman but killed Gul Makay.

Similarly, on March 24, 2010, the Taliban attacked an American outpost in Ali Sher District, Khost Province. In response, the Americans fired mortars, one of which hit a home in Chargoti village, killing a teenage couple and injuring a man, his wife and two of his children. [reported by the Afghan women’s network - RAWA]. The Wiki-leaks documents reveal other incidents of civilians being killed by errant U.S. mortars, the total number of such deaths being unknown. In each incident, there is no press release by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There is never any apparent official investigation and no apparent discipline or courts-martial of the military members involved. The pattern just continues to replicate in another part of Afghanistan.

The culprit is the “mortar.” The mortar is by definition an indiscriminate weapon. It began its life as simply a tube from which a shell or rocket is launched. As depicted in the top photo for this article, some mortars in use in Afghanistan today are just as crude and inaccurate as those used 60 years ago during the Second World War.

U.S. losing Afghanistan to China

Matthew Nasuti

The Chinese contribution (to Afghanistan) is as important as that of Western troops.” ~ A quote from Mohammad Yalaqi, the Afghan Minister of Commerce and Industry to Tini Tran of the Associated Press on July 4, 2010, for the story: “As US fights, China spends to gain Afghan foothold.”

It should stun the American public to discover that some Afghan officials place Chinese commercial ties on an equal par with ten years of American military and reconstruction efforts.

On July 5, 2010, Senator John McCain, speaking in Afghanistan, stated: “If we succeed there (Kandahar) we will succeed in the rest of this struggle.” The reality is that Afghans may credit China for any defeat of the Taliban. It is disquieting that the American Embassy in Kabul is losing a little-known propaganda war over who is helping the Afghans the most.

In contrast, the Chinese Embassy in Kabul is waging a brilliant campaign to advance its interests. Almost as significant, it is waging its war so skillfully that American diplomats are seemingly oblivious to the Chinese efforts. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell traveled to Beijing in October 2009, to urge China to assist and invest in Afghanistan. Earlier this month, when the Associated Press interviewed State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid, he praised China’s efforts in Afghanistan!

China is not merely winning the propaganda war. It is keeping a low public profile in Afghanistan, which keeps Muslim militant efforts focused on the very visible American military presence.

Stanley A. McChrystal for U. S. Ambassador - Kabul; Richard C. Holbrooke for U.S. Ambassador - Islamabad

Matthew Nasuti

America’s last chance to prevail against the Taliban depends on a sound strategy and a unified, competent civilian/military command structure. The current State Department effort is fractured by having Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry, “Special” Representative/Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke and Deputy Secretary of State Jacob J. Lew sharing authority over Afghanistan.

This author, in 2009, called for Karl Eikenberry to be replaced as he is gloomy and orthodox. More importantly, he does not support President Obama’s current counterinsurgency strategy. President Obama has four reasons to replace Eikenberry:

1. The U.S. Embassy, in 2009, decided to open “show” consulates in Mazar-e Sharif and Herat instead of complementing the military strategy by focusing on opening a consulate in the heart of Taliban territory - Afghanistan’s second largest city, Kandahar. Other countries have consulates in Kandahar; they are not afraid of the Taliban. In contrast, Eikenberry’s decisions radiate fear of the Taliban and confusion over President Obama’s strategy.

2. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, in 2010, created negative publicity for the United States when it decided to hire controversial Blackwater/Xe to provide security for the unnecessary Mazar-e Sharif and Herat consulates. Ambassador Eikenberry will not admit that the consulates are a mistake and he has no qualms about compounding his mistakes.

3. The ArmorGroup security guard sex and alcohol scandal at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, in September 2009, was a major public relations embarrassment for which no U.S. Embassy officials have yet to be held accountable.

4. The U.S. Embassy announced that it will complete its civilian “surge” by January 1, 2011. On that date, it will finally have all its personnel in-place for the expanded effort that President Obama announced in January 2009. This surge (more accurately a trickle) of well under a thousand civilian experts has been a half-hearted and lackluster effort that is hurting the war effort.

:: Next >>

Health topic page on womens health Womens health our team of physicians Womens health breast cancer lumps heart disease Womens health information covers breast Cancer heart pregnancy womens cosmetic concerns Sexual health and mature women related conditions Facts on womens health female anatomy Womens general health and wellness The female reproductive system female hormones Diseases more common in women The mature woman post menopause Womens health dedicated to the best healthcare
buy viagra online